Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority once there is a Tribunal of three Members." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 3, 2026, held that orders passed by the Maintenance and Appellate Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are a nullity if they lack the mandated statutory coram.

A bench of Justice Kirti Singh observed that where the State Government has notified a three-member composition for such Tribunals, a Chairman acting alone lacks the jurisdiction to pass a valid order.

The dispute arose when a senior citizen (Respondent No. 3) moved an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 seeking the cancellation of transfer deeds executed in 2020 in favour of the petitioner and another individual. While the Maintenance Tribunal initially dismissed the application in 2025, the Appellate Tribunal subsequently allowed the appeal in May 2026. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court, primarily contending that the proceedings were conducted without the legally required number of members.

The primary question before the court was whether the orders passed by the Maintenance and Appellate Tribunals were vitiated as being coram non judice due to the absence of the mandated three-member panel. The court was also called upon to determine if the Chairman of the Tribunal has the individual jurisdiction to decide matters when the relevant state notification prescribes a multi-member composition.

Notification Prescribing Composition Of Tribunals Is Binding

The Court examined the Haryana Government’s notification dated November 17, 2016, which prescribes the composition of both the Maintenance and Appellate Tribunals. Under this notification, both bodies are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and the Deputy Commissioner acting as their respective Chairmen. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned orders were passed in the absence of the third member, thereby violating the mandated structure of the forum.

Decision Must Be Unanimous Or By Majority

Justice Kirti Singh relied on a coordinate bench precedent which clarified the limits of the Chairman's authority in a multi-member tribunal. The Court noted that even though the District Magistrate acts as the Chairman, they do not possess the jurisdiction to take decisions unilaterally. The bench observed that the scheme of the Act requires the decision to be taken either unanimously or by way of a majority among the duly constituted members of the Tribunal.

"The Tribunal has been specifically constituted... 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."

Absence Of Mandated Coram Renders Order Coram Non Judice

The Court found that the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on October 8, 2025, was passed by an authority lacking the lawful coram prescribed in the 2016 notification. Consequently, the High Court held that such an order is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. The bench emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal committed a further error by overlooking this inherent jurisdictional infirmity while proceeding to hear and allow the appeal.

"This Court finds that the order dated 08.10.2025 was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and lawful coram... Consequently, the same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained."

Final Directions And Remand For Fresh Adjudication

Taking note of the fact that even the State counsel did not dispute the lack of proper coram, the Court set aside the orders of both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The matter has been remanded back to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication in strict accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. The Court directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on July 13, 2026, for an expedited resolution after providing an adequate opportunity for a hearing.

The ruling reaffirms the principle that statutory tribunals must be constituted strictly in accordance with government notifications. Any deviation from the prescribed coram strips the authority of its jurisdiction, rendering its decisions void. By setting aside the orders, the High Court ensured that the rights of senior citizens and property holders are adjudicated by a legally constituted forum rather than a truncated tribunal.

Date of Decision: July 03, 2026