SMT. DEVI Vs. MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, NARNAUL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the instant appeal with a delay of 208 days which has been explained to the illness and consequent death of her husband. We find this to be a justifiable cause to condone the delay and while doing so entertain the appeal where the learned counsel representing the appellant while impugning the order dated 28.11.2016 has contended that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in virtually closing the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal. The appellant and her deceased husband had initiated the proceedings under sections 4, 5, 9 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') asking for multifarious reliefs including the negation of a gift deed in favour of respondent No. 2. Maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was also sought. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to determine the issue as it was a case of maintenance only and thus directed the application to be treated under Section 22 instead of Section 23 of the Act. We may extract Sections 22 and 23 of the Act here below:-

(2.) If the application submitted before the Maintenance Tribunal is to be perused, it clearly makes out a case for negation of the gift deed in favour of respondent No. 2 and therefore, the learned Single Judge was indeed wrong in presuming that the prayer should have been only under Section 22 and under Section 23 of the Act. The maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as sought by the appellant was indeed given on a concession made by respondent No. 2 himself. The learned Single Judge in the concluding paragraphs of the impugned order has observed as under :

(3.) After perusal of the impugned order and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the entire order of the learned Single Judge proceeds from an assumption that the application was merely under Section 22 and not under Section 23 of the Act. However, in the given set of circumstances, when a helpless widow is seeking relief under the special act, it would not be feasible course to summon the other side in the present proceedings as it is likely to result in delay and largely inconvenience an old widow seeking relief and protection from her own children and thus we intend to dispose it of with a clarification that while keeping the grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- intact, we make it clear that the proceedings initiated by the appellant before the Tribunal seeking relief under Section 23 of the Act will sustain and the Tribunal would be allowed to go into this aspect.