IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has all the trappings of a civil court, and any order passed by it can be challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.6192/2021, Ashok Kumar Joshi vs. Achlaram Bhargava Joshi and Anr., whereby the said writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub-divisional Officer, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Maintenance Tribunal’) has been dismissed.

2. Respondent - Achlaram filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking maintenance from the appellant. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dated 17.02.2021 and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent – Achlaram. Another application filed by the appellant before the Maintenance Tribunal for recalling of the order dated 17.02.2021 was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2021.

3. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 17.02.2021 and 17.03.2021, the appellant preferred the above referred writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2023, which is under challenge in this intra-court appeal.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.05.2023, granted time to the counsel for the appellant to satisfy the court with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal in light of the fact that the learned Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Tribunal. However, on 10.07.2023, this Court issued notice of the present appeal on the question of maintainability as well as on merits.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr Muktesh Maheshwari put in appearance on behalf of the respondent – Achlaram and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this intra-court appeal while contending that the learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of Maintenance Tribunal, hence, this intra-court appeal under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1952) is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, this intra-court appeal under Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952 is maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act do not have all the trappings of civil court and cannot be held to be a court of civil court in strict sense. It is contended that any order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be termed as an order passed by civil court and, therefore, challenge to any such order would be maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the present intra-court appeal preferred against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is very well maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is liable to be rejected and the present intra-court appeal be decided on merits.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Achlaram vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and reiterated that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, this intra-court appeal against the impugned judgment is not maintainable.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties o