##PAGE1##

CWP-5555-2020 -1-

218 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-5555-2020

Decided on: 03.02.2026

Shiv Kumar .... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. S.S.Duhan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate and

Ms. Shalini Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.4.

****

Kuldeep Tiwari, J. (Oral)

1. Senior citizen has knock the doors of this Court by filing the

instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

wherethrough, the legality of order dated 20.08.2021 ( Annexure P-3), as

passed by Presiding Officer, Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind -

respondent No.3 and order dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure P-5), as passed by

Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, Jind has been put to challenge,

and further for issuance of directions upon 3^rd respondent to declare the release

deed Nos.3786 dated 21.09.2018, and 3787 dated 21.09.2018 to be void by

invoking the provisions of Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act

2007’).

SONIA BURA

2026.02.06 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-5555-2020 -2-

2. Succinctly put, the petitioner filed an application under Section 23

of the Act 2007, for cancelling the release deeds (supra), through which the

property in question was transferred in favour of 4^th respondent, who is son of

the petitioner. The application, thus, contains the allegations to the extent that

he has two sons; elder one is residing at Noida, whereas, Anuj (4^th respondent)

is residing with the present petitioner, who played a fraud and allured him, and

got the house in question transferred through release deed and post getting the

release deed executed, there was change in his behaviour, and the petitioner

was thrown out of the house, and one room of the house was given to him to

reside. The house in question is now further transferred in favour of wife of

4^th respondent, and the shop, which is within/adjacent to the house, is

transferred in favour of 3^rd party. The application was considered by learned

Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, instead of accepting the prayer of

cancellation of release deeds, 4^th respondent was held liable to pay Rs.10,000/-

per month, as maintenance to the petitioner, and with a further direction that

the maintenance amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the senior

citizen. Searching for a grievance from the order of learned Tribunal, an

appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007, was preferred by the petitioner,

however, the appeal was dismissed in totality, and hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is no

recital in the transfer deed of having any condition of maintenance, however, it

was specifically pleaded in the application that the respondent son, ensures to

maintain the petitioner, but immediately after execution of the release deed, he

stopped maintaining the petitioner. He further submits that learned Tribunal

SONIA BURA

2026.02.06 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-5555-2020 -3-

should have considered the allegations, as alleged in the application, and the

other documentary evidence placed on record to substantiate that the transfer

was on condition of maintenance. He finally submitted that 4^th respondent has

now transferred the property to debar the petitioner from his rightful due,

which shows his intention, and this act itself is sufficient to invoke the

mischief of Section 23 of the Act, 2007. It has also been submitted that

though The Maintenance Tribunal through order dated 29.07.2021, fastened

the liability upon 4^th respondent to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/-

per month, but till date, he has not complied with the said directions, and

nothing towards the maintenance has been paid to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for 4^th respondent, puts his defence, t