IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal is envisaged against order of Tribunal constituted under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Prathiba M. Singh, J.—This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges order dated 18th August, 2020 passed by the ld. Additional District Magistrate (hereinafter, “ADM”) under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, “Act”).

3. Ld. counsel for the Respondents relies upon the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864 as also the recent order of a Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Naveen Kumar v. GNCTD & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1337/2020, decided on 5th February, 2020] to argue that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal.

4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner’s father had three properties, one in Rohini, one in Najafgarh and one in Munirka. Insofar as the Najafgarh property is concerned, the same was purchased in Respondent No.1’s name and the Munirka flat, which is the property in issue, was gifted to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned order, which allows Respondent No.1 to reside in the Munirka property, is not tenable.

5. Heard counsels for the parties. Section 16 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, “Act”) provides for an appellate remedy against an order of the tribunal. However, as per the text of the provision, any senior citizen or parent must prefer such an appeal within sixty days. The said provision 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 dully 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 to both the parties free of cost.”

6. Interpreting this provision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) has held that the remedy to appeal can be availed of by any affected party, which would include the children of senior citizens. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“An appeal is envisaged “against the order of the Tribunal”. This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent “aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal”. This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which d