A daughter facing eviction has been given three days to file her appeal, the Allahabad High Court has directed, holding that children aggrieved by eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act can appeal under Section 16 and following its 2019 Division Bench ruling to keep the law consistent.
Prayagraj: A daughter facing eviction at the instance of a senior citizen has been sent to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, with a time-bound direction to decide her appeal, as the Allahabad High Court ruled that children aggrieved by eviction orders passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can challenge them before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act [Dr. Upasana Giri v. State of U.P. and 4 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Indrajeet Shukla disposed of the writ petition after relying on the High Court’s earlier Division Bench decision in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (2019), which held that an appeal by children against an eviction order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal is maintainable.
Three days to appeal, 30 days to decide
Since the petitioner was willing to approach the appellate authority, the Court relegated her to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Prayagraj. It permitted her to file an appeal along with an application for interim relief within three days.
If the appeal and the interim application are filed within that time, the District Magistrate must pass an appropriate order on the interim relief application on or before November 16, 2026. The District Magistrate has also been directed to decide the entire appeal within 30 days of its institution, after hearing all parties, as mandated by Section 16(6) of the Act.
The Bench recorded an undertaking by counsel for respondent No. 5 that the respondent would not press for eviction until the appellate authority decides the interim relief application. In view of that undertaking, the Court said there was no occasion to grant further protection.
Why the Bench followed Akhilesh Kumar
The Bench noted that a plain textual reading of Section 16 does not suggest that an appeal at the instance of children aggrieved by an eviction order is maintainable. However, the Division Bench in Akhilesh Kumar had read the provision purposively to rule out “flagrant discrimination” between senior citizens or parents on one side and children on the other, by not conferring the right of appeal on one party while denying it to the other.
The Court recorded that Akhilesh Kumar had drawn on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India and the Madras High Court’s decision in Balamurugan v. Rukmani, both of which held that Section 16(1) must be read purposively so that both sides have a right of appeal. It also noted that the Chhattisgarh High Court in Rita Roy v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer had followed the same view.
Invoking the doctrine of stare decisis, the Bench said:
“Thus, while sitting in Division Bench, we in order to maintain consistency follow the judgment of our own Court rendered in Akhilesh Kumar (supra).”
The Court said it saw no reason to take a different view.
How the petition reached the Bench
The petitioner, Dr. Upasana Giri, challenged an order dated October 3, 2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj, in proceedings under Section 7(1) of the 2007 Act. The petitioner is the child of respondent No. 5, the senior citizen at whose instance the eviction proceedings were taken.
The State placed before the Bench several judgments of the Allahabad High Court and other High Courts, which had taken divergent views on whether children could maintain an appeal against eviction orders under the Act. It also relied on the 2019 Division Bench ruling in Akhilesh Kumar.
Counsel for the Union of India told the Bench that the Central legislature is already considering the question of conferring a right of appeal on children, though the proposal has not yet crystallised.
The High Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the challenge to the SDM’s order of October 3, 2026 on merits, and left the appellate authority free to examine the facts and the applicable law independently. The writ petition was disposed of.
Why the order matters
The 2007 Act gives senior citizens and parents a fast, summary remedy, including eviction of children or relatives who neglect or harass them. Section 16, on its plain words, gives a right of appeal only to a senior citizen or parent aggrieved by a Tribunal’s order. This has left children facing eviction without a statutory forum and pushed them to file writ petitions, with High Courts taking different views on whether they could appeal at all.
By reaffirming Akhilesh Kumar and aligning with the Punjab and Haryana, Madras and Chhattisgarh High Courts, the Division Bench has confirmed that, within Uttar Pradesh, children can take an eviction order to the District Magistrate in appeal, with the statutory 30-day timeline. Until Parliament amends Section 16, as the Centre indicated it is considering, this purposive reading remains the working rule for appeals by both sides.
Case Title: Dr. Upasana Giri v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 918
Bench: Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: To be verified (reported November 3, 2026)
Impugned Order: SDM, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj, dated October 3, 2026, under Section 7(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007