****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/daughter-in-law of respondents No.3 and 4 (senior citizens), has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-12), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1), in appeal No.36 of 2025, titled ‘Dipti Saini vs. Rajender Parshad and others’, whereby, the appeal was held to be not maintainable, at the behest of non-senior citizen.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7282-2010, titled ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ wherethrough, it has been clearly held that even a non-senior citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal.

3. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment dated 15.12.2025, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018, titled ‘Babu Lal Sharma vs. Shushila Devi and others’ and connected matters, to contend that proceedings initiated against a daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not legally sustainable.

4. Earlier, this Court after considering the matter, which is a dispute between the husband and wife, had made an endeavour to give a quietus, and settle the dispute between the parties, through amicable means, passed the hereinafter extracted order dated 07.05.2026, upon the instant petition:-

“As per the report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, efforts to settle the matter could not yield any fruitful result. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the affirmed view that primarily, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, on the ground of maintainability. Considering the nature of dispute, and relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who are present in person, this Court put in earnest efforts to settle the matter amicably. As a result, respondent No.5-husband submits that he is ready to make meticulous compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, in the proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by providing a rented accommodation to the petitioner; remitting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, besides education expenses of the minor child, etc. Accordingly, on the request, the matter is adjourned to 22.05.2026, enabling respondent No.5 to find out a suitable rented accommodation in Sector 20 or 21, Panchkula. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to accompany respondent No.5 in the process, who, in turn, shall extend full cooperation. To be shown in the urgent list.”

5. Various efforts were made to resettle the petitioner/daughter-in-law, in the alternate accommodation, in view of orders passed in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, it does not yield any fruits.

6. Learned senior counsels for the respondents though opposed the prayer made in the instant writ petition, vociferously. However, they admitted that there is illegality in the order, passed by learned Appellate Tribunal, to the extent, that an appeal filed by the petitioner/daughter-in-law, is not maintainable.

7. In view of the above, taking strength from the judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7282-2010, titled ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ wherethrough, it has been clearly held that even a non-senior citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-12), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1), does not pass the test of legality. Therefore, the same is set a