IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Manju Devi and another ….Petitioners Versus Maintenance Tribunal (Senior Citizen) Sub Division, Rohtak, and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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

Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1) The petitioners/daughters-in-law, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-5), vide which, the appeal preferred by respondents No.3 and 4 (senior citizens) against the order dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure P-3), has been allowed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, thereby directing the petitioners to vacate the house in question.

2) Briefly put, respondents No.3 and 4, filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), primarily, on the ground that, post demise of their sons, their daughters-in-law/petitioners, who happen to be real sisters, have been trying, tooth and nail, to usurp the property in question. Further, due to unwarranted and violent behavior of the petitioners towards the senior citizens, an FIR was also got registered. Upon consideration of the matter, the learned Maintenance Tribunal did not find any substance in the application (supra), and thus, dismissed the same, vide order dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved, the senior citizens preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. After analyzing the submissions, the learned Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the learned Maintenance Tribunal failed to factor in certain relevant aspects of the matter, therefore, the order dated 22.02.2022 could not sustain. Accordingly, the appeal has been allowed, and the petitioners have been directed to vacate the house in question. Hence, the instant writ petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the decision dated 15.12.2025, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal Sharma Vs. Sushila Devi and others), and other connected matters, asserts that an application, under the provisions of the Act of 2007, against the daughter-in-law is not maintainable, as she does not fall within the ambit of relatives. He further places reliance upon an order dated 28.01.2026, rendered in CWP-29986-2022 (Meenu Vs. Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Appellate Tribunal, Rohtak and others), wherein, the similar view has been adopted by this Court.

Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the senior citizens submits that the learned Appellate Authority, after dealing with the scope of the Act of 2007, and also the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has found substance in the plea raised by the senior citizens. Further, it is a matter of record that the petitioners own their separate houses, still they are adamant to vacate the house in question, which was purchased by respondent No.3, out of his hard earned money, though in the name of his son(s). While inviting attention of this Court towards various litigation pending inter se the parties and their financial capacity, he submits that despite being owners of the house, the senior citizens are constrained to spend their twilight years, at the mercy of their son.

5) This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the impugned order.

6) Indisputably, the predominant issue, which arises for consideration of this Court, i.e. as to whether, the senior citizen can invoke the provisions of the Act of 2007, against the daughter-in-law, is no more res integra, as the same has already been deliberated upon and answered by the Division Bench in Babu Lal Sharma (supra). It would be essential to refer to