Deepak Jain vs District Magistrate and Chairman Appellate Tribunal, Yamunanagar

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 95344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Kirti Singh, J
Deepak Jain – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate and Chairman Appellate Tribunal, Yamunanagar – Respondent
CWP No. 15381 of 2023

Important Points

Proceedings initiated under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are co-terminus with the life of the senior citizen; upon their death, the right to seek benefits under this special statute abates, rendering subsequent appeals infructuous.

Subject

Civil Law - Senior Citizen Welfare

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: S.34
Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: S.23

Headnote

The petitioner challenged an order of the Maintenance Tribunal passed under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which set aside a family settlement and an arbitral award, and a subsequent order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal as infructuous following the death of the senior citizen. The petitioner contended that the dispute involved proprietary rights and the cause of action survived the death of the original applicant. The primary issue was whether proceedings under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can continue after the death of the senior citizen who initiated them. The court reasoned that the Act is intended to secure the welfare of senior citizens during their lifetime, and the protection accorded to a senior citizen is co-terminus with their life, rendering the proceedings infructuous upon their demise. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law for adjudication of their respective civil and proprietary rights.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Sharma
For the Respondents: Kapil Bansal, Udit Garg, R.S. Budhwar, Vaishali Kamboj

Table of Content
1. challenge against maintenance tribunal's order and the appellate tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous due to the death of the senior citizen. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents argue that the death of the senior citizen terminates the proceedings under the special act. (Para 4)
3. protections under the senior citizens act are co-terminus with the life of the senior citizen, making proceedings infructuous upon their death. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. writ jurisdiction is not for re-appreciating facts; a party may pursue independent civil remedies for proprietary rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, whereby the petition filed by the deceased-Darshan Lal Jain, senior citizen was accepted and the arbitration award as well as family settlement entered into between the private parties was set aside. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as infructuous on account of death of senior citizen.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel contends that the dispute in the instant case was not one relating to neglect or refusal to maintain a senior citizen, but one seeking annulment of a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 29.08.2008 and the arbitral award dated 11.09.2008, which had attained finality and under which all parties had been placed in possession of their respective shares. It is contended that such an award could be challenged only in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not contested before the tribunal. Moreover, there was no stipulation in the family settlement or arbitral award making transfer of property conditional upon providing maintenance or basic amenities to the transferor. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) were also absent.

3. It is further argued that the Appellate Tribunal committed a manifest error in declining to examine the legality of the Tribunal's order solely on the ground that the senior citizen had expired during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel contends that since the controversy pertained to the validity of the cancellation of a family settlement and arbitral award affecting valuable proprietary rights, the cause survived the death of the original applicant and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction in concluding that since the senior citizen Sh. Darshan Lal Jain had expired, hence the proceedings could not be continued. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2402-2017, decided on 21.07.2023, titled as ‘ Gurdeep Singh and others V. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer and another ’ and the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in W.A. No.264 of 2020, decided on 17.02.2020, titled as ‘ Antony Scaria V. The District Collector, Kottayam and The Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Collectorate and others ’.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal declining to en