PARVEEN Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a sexagenarian senior citizen, assails the order dtd. 24/9/2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, as well as the orders dtd. 1/4/2025 and 10/6/2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the petitioner instituted a petition under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") seeking cancellation of the transfer deed dtd. 17/3/2016, executed by her in favour of her brother/respondent No.3, who is also a senior citizen. Owing to the absence of the petitioner and her counsel, the Maintenance Tribunal, vide order dtd. 1/4/2025, dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the petition along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the Maintenance Tribunal, vide order dtd. 10/6/2025, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the restoration application at the preliminary stage. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which too came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 24/9/2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the orders (supra).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dismissal of the petition under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007 on account of a solitary non-appearance of the petitioner and her counsel is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the benevolent object of the Act of 2007, which enjoins the Maintenance Tribunal to ensure protection and welfare of senior citizens. It is further submitted that the Maintenance Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the restoration application on the ground of delay of 48 days, even though the explanation proffered therein adequately justified the delay, but the Maintenance Tribunal failed to consider the same in its true and proper perspective.