Allowed¶31

Charanjit Kaur v. District Magistrate and Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2025CWP/492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daughter-in-law not covered under Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Act 2007; senior citizen cannot seek eviction or cancellation of transfer deeds against daughter-in-law under the 2007 Act; Appellate Tribunal order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) setting aside respondent No.2's order dated 30.08.2019 and directing eviction held unsustainable and set aside; writ petition allowed; Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-492-2022 (O&M), Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, decided 01.05.2025; respondent No.3 absent despite service; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Appellate Tribunal order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) set aside. ¶31

Charanjit Kaur Vs District Magistrate and Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned Appellate Tribunal order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) set aside.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a daughter-in-law is covered under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Act, 2007, so that a senior citizen can claim relief against her under that Act. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The definition of 'children' given under the 2007 Act does not envisage a daughter-in-law; the 2007 Act has been framed with the clear intent that the daughter-in-law is not to be brought into the picture for getting relief under the 2007 Act.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 Act should have ensured whether the daughter-in-law could be brought under the purview of the 2007 Act so as to claim the land in question back on the ground of non-maintenance; the authorities concerned have not appreciated this aspect at all.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since, against the daughter-in-law, no relief can be claimed by the senior citizen under the 2007 Act, the order passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 Act which has been impugned in the present petition (dated 25.11.2021, Annexure P/2) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral) — CWP-492-2022 (O&M), decided 01.05.2025: The definition of 'children' under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Act, 2007 does not envisage a daughter-in-law, the 2007 Act having been framed with the clear intent that a daughter-in-law is not to be brought into the picture for obtaining relief under it; hence a senior citizen (mother-in-law) can claim no relief against her daughter-in-law under the 2007 Act. The Appellate Tribunal's order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2), by which the order dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) of respondent No.2 was set aside and eviction of the petitioner-daughter-in-law directed (cancelling transfer deed No.1159 dated 02.08.2016 and transfer deed No.1530 dated 28.09.2016 executed in favour of her deceased husband/son of respondent No.3), was held unsustainable and set aside. Petition allowed; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CWP-492-2022 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

214 CWP-492-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision :01.05.2025

Charanjit Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

District Magistrate & Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶10

Present: Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

None for respondent No.3.

¶13

¶14

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶15

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by Appellate Tribunal by which, order dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 has been set aside directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Act’) on the petition filed by the respondent No.3-senior citizen, who is a mother-in-law of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 has passed an impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) without even appreciating the fact whether the daughter-in-law is covered under the 2007 Act or not.

¶17

The prayer of the petitioner-daughter-in-law is that the

¶18

AARTI SHARMA3. 2025.05.03 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-492-2022 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) cancelling the transfer deed No.1159 dated 02.08.2016 & the transfer deed No.1530 dated 28.9.2016 are liable to the set aside simply on the ground that no proceedings can be initiated by the respondent No.3-senior citizen against the petitoiner-daughter-in-law.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner-daughter-in-law further submits that the transfer of the land by respondent No.3-senior citizen was in favour of the husband of the petitioner, who unfortunately died after which, the said property devolved upon the petitioner-wife and her children and after the death of the husband of the petitioner i.e. son of respondent No.3-senior citizen, a method was adopted by the respondent No.3-senior citizen to get back transferred property from the petitioner-daughter-in-law by way of filing a petition under the 2007 Act and the Appellate Authority envisaged under the 2007 Act without appreciating the provisions of the 2007 Act have passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) cancelling the said transfer deed, which order is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Despite service, respondent No.3-senior citizen did not appear. Present petition was filed three years ago and nobody has been appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-senior citizen since then.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

¶25

The definition of the children which has been given under the 2007 Act does not envisage daughter-in-law. The 2007 Act has been framed with a clear intent that the daughter-in-law is not to be brought into picture for getting the relief under the 2007 Act.

¶26

In the present case, the proceedings which were initiated under

¶27

AARTI SHARMA8. 2025.05.03 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP-492-2022 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

the 2007 Act by the respondent No.3-senior citizen was after the death of her son, who before his death had already transferred the property vide transfer deed No.1530 dated 28.09.2016 in favour of the petitionerdaughter-in-law. That being so, the Appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 Act should have ensured whether, the daughterin-law could be brought under the purview of 2007 Act so as to claim the land in question back on the ground that petitioner-daughter-in-law was not maintaining the respondent No.3-senior citizen. The authorities concerned have not appreciated the said aspect at all.

¶31

Once, against the daughter-in-law, no relief can be claimed by the senior citizen under 2007 Act, the petition filed by the respondent No.3senior citizen against the daughter-in-law to get the land in question back which she had actually transferred in favour of her son vide transfer deed No.1159 dated 02.08.2016, who had already died, the order passed by the authorities concerned exercising jurisdiction under the 2007 Act which has been impugned in the present petition dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. Present petition is allowed in above terms.

¶32

May 01, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶33

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.03 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Charanjit Kaur v. District Magistrate and Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Kaur v. District Magistrate and Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Parkash Vs Po,Industrieal Tribunal Cum Labour Court Hissar & Anr.

Raj Pal Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak & Ors.

Harish Sehgal and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Lakshman Dass Vs Executive Engineer

Mehak Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.

Bch Electric Ltd. Vs P.O. Labour