1. Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondents nos. 3 and 4.

2. Petitioners in this writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 11 of 2018 (Suresh Kumar and others vs. Akhilesh and others) in a proceeding under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2007).

3. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 initiated a proceeding against the petitioners for grant of maintenance and allowance. In the said case an order was passed on 5.11.2018 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, respondent no.2, which order is impugned herein, directing the petitioners to pay maintenance to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and also directing eviction of the petitioners from the said premises. Against the order dated 5.11.2018 the petitioners filed Appeal No. 2 of 2019 before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under section 16 of the Act, 2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sri Vijai Vishwas Pant, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no.1 observed that the appeal at the behest of the petitioners was not maintainable, inasmuch as under section 16 of the Act, 2007 it was maintainable only at the behest of the senior citizens or parents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 31.10.2018 as Annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed by the same authority in another Appeal No. 284/2018 (Ravi Gupta vs. Ibairam Gupta and others) wherein the said authority has taken the same view. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner on being informed that the appeal is not maintainable as similar order has been passed in a similar case by the same authority on 31.10.2018, he moved an application dated 31.12.2018 with liberty to withdraw the appeal and challenge the order dated 15.11.2018 before the High Court. Hence this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under section 16 of the Act, 2007 an appeal can only be filed by the senior citizens or parents who are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal. He therefore, submits that no appeal would lie against the impugned order at the behest of the petitioners. Section 16 of the Act, 2007 reads as under:

"16. Appeals. - (1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal: Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent.

(3)The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred.

(4)The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal.

(5)The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be final: Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard in person or through a duly authorised representative.

(6)The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal.

(7)A copy of every order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent