Orders passed by judicial bodies require proper jurisdiction, and any judgment rendered without such jurisdiction is deemed null and void.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The relief sought in the present writ petition is for setting aside the orders dated 10.09.2021 and 10.01.2022 passed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner, a senior citizen, filed an application under Sections 23 and 25 of the MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT , 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking cancellation of a transfer deed dated 22.04.2015 executed by him in favour of respondent No.4. Vide order dated 10.09.2021, the Maintenance Tribunal declined the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of the transfer deed, but directed respondent No.4 to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal further directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the house in question during his lifetime, and the house shall not be sold by respondent No.4 during that period. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for cancellation of the transfer deed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2022. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the orders (supra).

3. Before gauging the validity of the impugned orders, it is pertinent to note that the dispute was earlier amicably resolved between the parties through a compromise deed dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure A-2). Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 08.11.2023, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order dated 08.11.2023 and restoration of the writ petition, on the ground that, respondent No.4 was not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise deed. Finding merit in the application, this Court recalled the order dated 08.11.2023 and restored the writ petition to its original position.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court afforded respondent No.4 an opportunity to adhere to the terms of the compromise deed. However, respondent No.4, by bringing certain supervening circumstances on record, expressed his unwillingness to abide by the compromise. It is also undisputed that respondent No.4 has not paid the arrears of maintenance, as directed by the Maintenance Tribunal, whose order he has not chosen to challenge.

5. In view of the foregoing, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order on 11.11.2025:-

“1. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondent No. 4 is not willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure A-2), and therefore, he wishes to address arguments on the merits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to Rules 3 and 17 of the Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, which stipulate the constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal respectively, submits that the impugned order(s) have been passed by the Tribunal without the complete coram stipulated under the Rules (supra), and hence, the impugned order(s) warrant interference on this ground alone.

3. Learned State counsel seeks an adjournment, thereby enabling him to address arguments as to whether the impugned order(s) passed by the Tribunal withstand the test of legality in view of the Rules (supra).

4. List, as prayed for, on 17.11.2025 in the urgent list.

5. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side, except for strong and compelling reasons.”

6. Today, learned counsel for the peti