Whether any affected party other than a senior citizen can file an appeal under the Senior Citizen Act?

  The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the writ petition ought to be entertained by this Court, as an appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) can only be filed by a senior citizen. Ms. Tandon, ld. Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is appealable to the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 22 (3)(4) of the Rules, as amended on 19th December, 2016. Accordingly, she submits that the Petitioner be allowed to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

12. The abovementioned judgments clarify that any `affected person’ can prefer the appeal and not just a senior citizen or parent. The view taken by this Court is by following the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864. The relevant observations are set out below:

“An appeal is envisaged “against the order of the Tribunal”. This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent “aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal”. This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount. Now it can hardly be envisaged that in an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent, there could be a question of absence of stay. Such absence of stay was only envisaged where the appeal is preferred by a children or relative. It is that eventuality the proviso deals with. The proviso is, thus, consistent with what has been set out in Section 15 of the said Act.

We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 5th March, 2021

W.P.(C) 2895/2021, CM APPLs. 8722/2021 & 8723/2021

RAKHI SHARMA Vs THE STATE & ORS.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Dated: MARCH 5, 2021

Print Page

When maintenance tribunal should declare transfer of property void?

The Petitioner is placing implicit reliance on the MOU

which does not have any probative value taking into consideration the

circumstances, in which it was executed.  The Act of 2007 confers on

the   maintenance   tribunal   express   power   to   declare   a   transfer   of

property void at the option of the transferor.  Under section 23 of the

said Act, it is to be presumed  that the intent of the legislature is to

empower the maintenance tribunal to pass effective and meaningful

orders including   consequential directions to give effect to the said

order.  The Act empowers  the tribunal to grant speedy  consequential

relief.  In the present case, although the interim relief was vacated,

the   Petitioner   and   Respondent   No.3   has   continued   to   harass   the

parents   and   therefore,   it   is   necessary   to   evict   the   Petitioner   and

Respondent No. 3 from the said bungalow i.e. i.e.  Girnar Bungalow,

Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi, District Pune. 

43 It is in these circumstances that the Writ Petition being

sans merits stands dismissed on the following terms:

(i) The Order passed by the Learned Sub­Divisional Officer,

Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   and   confirmed   by   the   learned

Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016, Pune is

hereby  maintained.

(ii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   to   pay   Rs.

2,000/­ each to the parents/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1st

August, 2017.  

(iii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   are   further

directed     to   vacate   the   premises   of   bungalow   i.e.     Girnar

Bungalow, Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi,

District Pune within two weeks from the date of  passing of this

order.  

(iv) In the eventuality  that the Petitioner and Respondent No.

3  do not vacate the premises of above bungalow voluntarily the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to seek   police aid to

execute the present order.  

(v) The Petitioner to pay cost   of Rs. 25,000/­ towards the

cost of litigation to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly within 2

weeks from today.   The amount to be deposited before the

Tribunal, Pune constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which shall not be

included in the maintenance amount.

(vi) The Tribunal at Pune is hereby directed to implement and

execute   the   Order   dated   20/2/2016   passed   by   the   Sub

Divisional   Officer,   Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   within   two

weeks from today.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1791  OF 2016

Shri Santosh Surendra Patil.  V Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & ors. ..

­­­

CORAM :  SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J

     

 PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 23, 2017

Print Page