Disposed

Gurvinder Kaur v. Additional District Magistrate and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2026CWP/1137/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen challenged the Appellate Tribunal's appellate order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner instead of the statutorily designated District Magistrate under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. State counsel conceded no sub-delegation was permissible. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order set aside; matter remanded to District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision within eight weeks after hearing parties.

Gurvinder Kaur Vs Additional District… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104 CWP-1137-2026 Date of Decision : February 05, 2026

GURVINDER KAUR

-PETITIONER

V/S

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

¶7

-RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: Mr. Dheeraj Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a septuagenarian senior citizen, assails the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.1- Appellate Tribunal, whereby the statutory appeal filed by the respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) was allowed, the order dated 04.10.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent No.2- Maintenance Tribunal.

¶15

The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is submitted that, in view of the Punjab Government

¶16

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.02.06 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

¶18

CWP-1137-2026

¶19

Notification bearing No. 8/10/2008-8SS/542 dated 15.07.2008, and in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 7(1)&(2) and 15(1)&(2) of the Act of 2007, the Governor of Punjab constituted the Maintenance Tribunals/Appellate Tribunals. Their jurisdictions for the implementation of the Act of 2007 are as under:-

¶20

Sr. No.	Name of the Tribunal	Jurisdiction	Presiding Officer of the Tribunal
1.	Maintenance Tribunal	Sub Division of the District concerned	Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned
2.	Appellate Tribunal	District concerned	District Magistrate of the area concerned

¶21

Consequently, it is submitted that since the impugned order

¶22

has not been passed by the statutory authority, i.e. District Magistrate, rather has been passed by an authority exercising sub-delegated powers, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka, it deserves to be set aside.

¶23

This Court posed a specific query to learned State counsel as to whether, under the statutory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute. Learned State counsel has fairly conceded that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated.

¶24

Moreover, learned State counsel has furnished a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Security and Women & Child Development, Punjab, wherethrough it has been categorically clarified to all the concerned authorities that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Act of 2007 are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi-

¶25

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.02.06 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

¶27

CWP-1137-2026

¶28

judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted hereunder:-

¶29

“To

¶30

All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers, Appellate Tribunal Constituted under Sections 15(1) & 15(2) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶31

No. P-3(SS)/2025/82189

¶32

Dated, Chandigarh 27-10-2025

¶33

Sub: Implementation of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.09.2025 in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others.

¶34

In continuation of this Department's Notification No. 8/10/2008-8SS/798 dated 27th August 2008, (Flag-A) whereby the District Magistrates were designated as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, attention is invited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others decided on 26.09.2025. (Flag-B)

¶35

2. The Hon'ble Court has categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi-judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence.

¶36

3. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Office of the Worthy Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, vide letter No.OSD(L)/CS/2025/64708997 dated 09.10.2025, (Flag-C) has directed that the above order be circulated to all concerned authorities for meticulous compliance.(Copy enclosed along with Hon'ble Court orders).

¶37

4. It is, therefore, requested to ensure strict and prompt compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High

¶38

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.02.06 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶39

CWP-1137-2026

¶40

¶41

Court and the Chief Secretary's Office. It may further be ensured that a copy of these orders is circulated to all Sub-Divisional Magistrates under your jurisdiction for necessary action and adherence.

¶42

5. Non-compliance may attract adverse observations from the Hon'ble Court; therefore, the matter may be treated as Top Priority.

¶43

Encls. As above.”

¶44

In view of the above, the impugned order does not pass the

¶45

test of legality and requires interference of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate -cum- Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, for fresh adjudication in accordance with Section 16 of the Act of 2007. Both the parties are directed to cause appearance before the District Magistrate - cum- Appellate Tribunal on 19.02.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter preferably within eight weeks, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective pleas before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶46

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶47

February	05, 2026	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶48

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.02.06 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Gurvinder Kaur v. Additional District Magistrate and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurvinder Kaur v. Additional District Magistrate and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cbc Memorial School Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hy.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Madhvi Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bunge India Private Limited and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Spdm Senior Secondary School Vs State of Haryana