Children Can Appeal Against Eviction Orders Under Senior Citizens Act

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Indrajeet Shukla of the Allahabad High Court decided Dr. Upasana Giri v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (2026). The Court held that an appeal by children against an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is maintainable under Section 16. It disposed of the writ petition and sent the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to file her appeal there.

What was the Background of Dr. Upasana Giri v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj, passed an order dated 3rd October 2026 in proceedings under Section 7(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 
• The petitioner, Dr. Upasana Giri, is the child of respondent no. 5. She challenged the order through a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. 
• During the hearing:  
  • the State cited several judgments of the Allahabad High Court and other High Courts that took different views on whether children can appeal against eviction orders under the Act, 
  • the State also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of UP (2019), and 
  • counsel for the Union of India told the Court that the central legislature is considering whether to give children a right of appeal, but no decision has been finalised yet. 

Question before the High Court: 

• Section 16 of the Act gives the right of appeal only to senior citizens and parents. Can children who are aggrieved by an eviction order passed by the Tribunal under the Act also appeal before the Appellate Tribunal?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 16 of the Act: 

• The Court accepted that on a plain reading, Section 16 does not show that children aggrieved by an eviction order can file an appeal. 
• However, in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of UP (2019), a Division Bench had read the provision purposively. Its aim was to avoid flagrant discrimination between senior citizens or parents on one side and children on the other, which would happen if only one side had a right of appeal. 

On the precedents relied upon: 

• In Akhilesh Kumar, the High Court had relied on:  
  • Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and 
  • Balamurugan v. Rukmani (Madras High Court). 
• Both judgments held that Section 16(1) should be read purposively and that both sides have a right of appeal. 
• A later decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Rita Roy v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer also held that an appeal by children aggrieved by an eviction order is maintainable. 
• In view of these decisions, the Court saw no reason to take a different view. 

On the doctrine of stare decisis: 

• Sitting as a Division Bench, the Court followed Akhilesh Kumar to keep the law consistent, as the doctrine of stare decisis requires. 

On the facts of the case: 

• The petitioner was willing to approach the appellate authority, so the Court sent her to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj. 
• The Court allowed her to file an appeal, along with an application for interim relief, within three days. 
• If both were filed within that time, the District Magistrate had to decide the interim relief application on or before 16th November 2026. 
• The District Magistrate was directed to hear all parties and decide the entire appeal within 30 days of its filing, as Section 16(6) of the Act requires. 
• The Court recorded an undertaking by counsel for respondent no. 5 that the respondent would not seek or press for eviction until the interim relief application was decided. Because of this undertaking, the Court found no need to grant any further protection. 

On the merits of the SDM’s order: 

• The Court made clear that it had not decided the challenge to the SDM’s order on the merits. 
• It allowed the appeal to be filed without interfering with the order dated 3rd October 2026, leaving the appellate authority free to examine the facts and the law independently. 

Decision: 

• The Court held that an appeal by children against an eviction order under the Act is maintainable. 
• The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was sent to the appellate authority.

What is Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

About: 

• Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides for appeals against orders of the Maintenance Tribunal. 
• Section 16(1): A senior citizen or parent aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within sixty days from the date of the order.  
  • While the appeal is pending, the children or relatives ordered to pay maintenance must keep paying it as directed. 
  • The Appellate Tribunal may hear an appeal filed after sixty days if there was sufficient cause for the delay. 
• Section 16(2) to (4): On receiving an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal issues notice to the respondent, may call for the record of the proceedings from the Tribunal, and may allow or reject the appeal after examining it and the record. 
• Section 16(5): The Appellate Tribunal decides the appeal, and its order is final. 
• Section 16(6): The Appellate Tribunal must try to pronounce its order in writing within one month of receiving the appeal. 

Key Features: 

• Text gives the right to one side: On a plain reading, only a senior citizen or parent can appeal under Section 16(1). 
• Purposive reading: Several High Courts, including the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Madras and Chhattisgarh High Courts, have read the provision so that children aggrieved by an order, especially an eviction order, can also appeal. 
• Avoiding discrimination: Giving only one side a right of appeal would be flagrant discrimination between parents and children. 
• Speedy disposal: The Act aims for quick relief, so the Appellate Tribunal is expected to decide appeals within one month.