In a recent case, Madras High Court has held that only parents/senior citizens are entitled to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act.
The Bench dismissed the petition that sought a declaration that an aggrieved party to a judgement passed under the Act could file an appeal u/s 16. The Bench further observed that when words of a statute don’t permit any other interpretation or meaning regarding the right of AppealAppeal, additional words can’t be read into statute/provision to include people who were otherwise excluded.
While referring to the language of Section 16, the Bench observed that the words refer to the time or description of a parent or senior citizen, and there is no room to imagine that other aggrieved parties can file an appeal.
At the starting of the AppealAppeal, the Bench observed that the instant petition was filed without any basis. It further noted that subsection 1 of Section 16 of the Act only states that if an order aggrieves a parent or Senior Citizen, only they can prefer an Appeal and no other person.
During the hearing, the counsel drew Court’s attention to Paramjit Kumar Saroya vs Union of India, wherein P&H High Court held that Section 16(1) provides the right to appeal to any affected parties.
However, the Court disagreed with the contention. It stated that AppealAppeal is a creature of statute, and no right of AppealAppeal is accorded to any person unless a statute gives it.
In this regard, the Court observed that the right of AppealAppeal might come with conditions and that right to appeal can be given to one person and not to another. It’s up to the legislature to decide which classes of people are disentitled to get the right to appeal and which are entitled.