IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101 (I) CWP-2132-2023 Date of Decision : February 06, 2026 PARMINDER KAUR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS (II) CWP-2175-2023 GULZAR SINGH AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, with Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate, and Ms. Apoorva Kinra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Yogender Kumar, Advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The amenability of both these writ petitions for being decided through a common verdict generates from theirs involving common parties, besides encompassing common facts and issues for adjudication.

2. Through the present writ petitions, the petitioners, who are senior citizens, have assailed the orders dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, whereby their applications under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) were dismissed. The petitioners have further challenged the orders dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby their statutory appeals were also dismissed. 3. Concisely and compendiously, the petitioners had filed the applications (supra) before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the transfer deeds executed by them in favour of their daughter/ respondent No.4. It was pleaded that owing to their advanced age and multiple age-related ailments, the petitioners executed the said transfer deeds subject to the condition that the respondent No.4 would provide them maintenance and take care of their basic physical needs. It was further averred that subsequent to the execution of the transfer deeds, the respondent No.4 changed her conduct and failed to maintain or look after the petitioners.

4. The applications were contested by the respondent No.4, who pleaded that although one transfer deed dated 06.02.2019 was executed in her favour, physical possession of the property transferred thereunder was never delivered to her and continued to remain with the tenant of the petitioners. The allegations of neglect were categorically denied, and it was asserted that the respondent No.4 had been maintaining and caring for the petitioners. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.4 and her husband had paid a sum of ₹5,00,000/- to the petitioners on 03.03.2020 and thereafter a further sum of ₹1,50,000/- on 08.09.2020 towards maintenance and medical assistance. Moreover, it was claimed that the respondent No.4 had borne the entire expenses of her father’s treatment at Max Hospital, Saket, New Delhi. It was also alleged that the applications had been filed at the behest of the sisters of the respondent No.4, as it is essentially a family property dispute, which is sought to be resolved under the guise of the provisions of the Act of 2007, amounting to a clear abuse of the process of law and misuse of the said Act

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the Maintenance Tribunal, vide the impugned orders dated 13.12.2021, recorded a finding that the transfer deeds were executed voluntarily by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.4, and that the applications seeking cancellation thereof had been filed under the influence of the petitioners’ other daughters owing to inter se property dispute. Consequently, the applications were dismissed. The statutory appeals preferred by the petitioners were also dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide orders dated 05.09.2022. Fetching grievance from the dismissal orders, the petitioners have knocked on the doors of this Court by filing the present writ petitions.

6. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that although the transfer deeds do not expressly contain any recital or stipulation making the transfer conditional upon the respond