***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) –

1. The relief sought in the present writ petition is for setting aside the orders dated 10.09.2021 and 10.01.2022 passed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner, a senior citizen, filed an application under Sections 23 and 25 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking cancellation of a transfer deed dated 22.04.2015 executed by him in favour of respondent No.4. Vide order dated 10.09.2021, the Maintenance Tribunal declined the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of the transfer deed, but directed respondent No.4 to pay maintenance of ? 5,000/- per month to the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal further directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the house in question during his lifetime, and the house shall not be sold by respondent No.4 during that period. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for cancellation of the transfer deed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2022. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the orders (supra).

3. Before gauging the validity of the impugned orders, it is pertinent to note that the dispute was earlier amicably resolved between the parties through a compromise deed dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure A-2). Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 08.11.2023, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order dated 08.11.2023 and restoration of the writ petition, on the ground that, respondent No.4 was not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise deed. Finding merit in the application, this Court recalled the order dated 08.11.2023 and restored the writ petition to its original position.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court afforded respondent No.4 an opportunity to adhere to the terms of the compromise deed. However, respondent No.4, by bringing certain supervening circumstances on record, expressed his unwillingness to abide by the compromise. It is also undisputed that respondent No.4 has not paid the arrears of maintenance, as directed by the Maintenance Tribunal, whose order he has not chosen to challenge.

5. In view of the foregoing, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order on 11.11.2025:-

“1. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondent No. 4 is not willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise (Annexure A-2), and therefore, he wishes to address arguments on the merits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to Rules 3 and 17 of the Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, which stipulate the constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal respectively, submits that the impugned order(s) have been passed by the Tribunal without the complete coram stipulated under the Rules (supra), and hence, the impugned order(s) warrant interference on this ground alone.

3. Learned State counsel seeks an adjournment, thereby enabling him to address arguments as to whether the impugned order(s) passed by the Tribunal withstand the test of legality in view of the Rules (supra).

4. List, as prayed for, on 17.11.2025 in the urgent list.

5. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side, except for strong and compelling reasons.”

6. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to a notification dated 08.12.2020 stipulating the composition of the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, has contended that the impugned orders suffer from the defect of coram non judice. It is submitted that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner acting as their respective Chairman. In the present case, however, the impugned orders were passed by Tribunals comprising only the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner, along with just one member, thereby lacking the prescribed coram. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 18784 of 2015, relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:-

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a reasoned order.”

7. Although learned State counsel and learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 do not dispute that the impugned orders suffer from the defect of coram non judice, learned senior counsel contends that the petitioner is precluded from raising this issue at this stage, as it was never pleaded earlier. This Court finds no merit in this submission for the reason that once an order is found to have been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or lawful coram, it is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained, irrespective of whether such a plea was initially taken.

8. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby set aside, having been passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal without the coram stipulated in the notification (supra). The matter is remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal concerned for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder. Considering that the proceedings have been pending since 24.03.2021, i.e. the date of filing of the original application, and the petitioner is now approximately 80 years old, this Court directs the Maintenance Tribunal to make every endeavour to decide the matter within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.

9. Disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

********