Ashish And ANR v. Additional District Magistrate, Ambala And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23447-2024 Date of Decision : September 24, 2025 ASHISH AND ANR.

-PETITIONERS V/S ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AMBALA AND ORS. -RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present writ petition impugns the order dated 30.03.2021, whereby the respondent No.1 not only entertained the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 22 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2007'), read with the applicable Action Plan, but also directed the petitioners to vacate the house in question, which is owned by the respondent No.2, the stepmother of the petitioner No.1.

2.

At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that, following the issuance of the notification dated 08.12.2020, the application (supra) was required to be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, which has been vested with statutory jurisdiction to entertain it. However, the application (supra) was DEVINDER YADAV 2025.09.26 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-23447-2024 erroneously filed before the Additional District Magistrate, who is otherwise vested with appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 16 of the Act of 2007. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed on a misconceived motion filed by the respondent No.2, and hence requires interference by this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, although not contesting the legal proposition that the application (supra) ought to have been filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, nonetheless submits that the cause of action for the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition no longer survives, as they have already vacated the house in question. Therefore, remanding the lis before the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate would not serve any purpose. 4.

In view of the undisputed legal proposition (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, is without jurisdiction and requires interference. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the lis is remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala, for a fresh decision on the application (supra) in accordance with law. The parties shall be given due opportunity of hearing before a decision is made on the application (supra). Moreover, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as it exists on date until the decision on the application (supra).

5.

Disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) September 24, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2025.09.26 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment