Gauhati High Court
CRP(IO)/56/2026 on 14 July, 2026
GAHC010039652026
2026:GAU-AS:9559
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP(IO)/56/2026
1. Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami
Son Of Sri Ramchandra Goswami,
Resident of House No. 7,
Rehabari Suhagpur, (Near Arya Hospital),
P.O.- Rehabari,
Guwahati, Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin- 781008.
2. Smt. Trisha Goswami
Wife Of Sri Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami
Resident of Resident of House No. 7
Rehabari Suhagpur (Near Arya Hospital)
P.O.
Rehabari Guwahati Kamrup (M)
Assam Pin- 78100
.....Petitioners
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 1
-Versus-
1. Ramchandra Goswami
Son Of Late Bhudhar Goswami,
Resident Of Resident Of House No. 7,
Rehabari Suhagpur, (Near Arya Hospital),
P.O. Rehabari, Guwahati, Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin- 781008
2. The Presiding Officer Maintenance Tribunal
Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati Assam
......Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, Sr.
Advocate
Mr. B. D. Deka, Advocate
Advocate for respondents : Mr. B. D. Konwar, Sr.
Advocate
Ms. S. Jain, Advocate
Date on which judgment is re- : 25.06.2026
served
Date of pronouncement of : 14.07.2026
judgment
Whether the pronouncement is of : N/A
the Operative part of the judgment
Whether the full judgment has : Yes
been pronounced
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 2
Judgment and Order
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Jain,
the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami and
Smt. Trisha Goswami, impugning the order dated 29.01.2026, passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati (constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), in WP Case No. 4717/2024, whereby
the petitioners have been directed to vacate and handover the
peaceful and vacant possession of residential premises belonging to
the respondent No. 1, which is situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, to him
within 30 days of date of the said order.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of this CRP (IO) in brief, are that
the respondent No. 1, herein, had initially approached the
Maintenance Tribunal, alleging that the present petitioners, who are
his son and daughter-in-law respectively, had subjected him to
continuous harassment, intimidation and hostile behaviour, as a result
of which he was compelled to leave his own residence and reside in
rented premises and hotels, and thereby his safety, peace, dignity and
mental well-being has been adversely affected. The Maintenance
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 3
Tribunal, after hearing the matter, by its order dated 20.07.2024,
recorded a finding that the Respondent No. 1 had sufficient means to
maintain himself and thereby rejected his claim for maintenance.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 1 approached
this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WP (C) No.
4217/2024. The said writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court by its judgment and order dated 14.07.2025, primarily on
the grounds that the Maintenance Officer had acted beyond his
jurisdiction as a Tribunal and granted liberty to the present
respondent No. 1 to approach the Jurisdictional Maintenance Tribunal
to seek redressal of his grievances under Section 5 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”).
5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, who is a senior citizen, again
approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, by
filing an application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007, inter-alia,
stating that he has a residential property situated at Ulubari, however,
due to the continuous hostile behaviour, harassment and intimidation
by the present petitioners, he had to leave his own residence and
reside in rented premises/hotel, whereby his mental well-being,
safety, peace and dignity has been adversely affected. He sought the
relief of eviction of the present petitioners from the aforesaid
residential building.
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 4
6. The present petitioners, who are the respondents in the aforesaid WP
Case No. 4717/2024 had filed their written objection in the aforesaid
proceedings. However, by the order dated 29.01.2026, the Presiding
Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) has allowed the application
filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the present petitioner to
vacate and handover the possession of residential premises situated
at Ulubari, Guwahati, to the present Respondent No. 1 within 30 days
from the date of the said order. Additionally, the Officer-in-Charge of
the jurisdictional police station was also directed by the Maintenance
Tribunal to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order. The said order
has been impugned in this Civil Revision Petition (I/O).
7. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submits that though in the impugned order, it has been stated that
the learned counsel for the present petitioners were heard by the
Tribunal, however, no such hearing took place before passing of the
impugned order by the Maintenance Tribunal. He further submits that
as per the Section 5 (3) of the Act of 2007, it is incumbent on the
Maintenance Tribunal to afford an opportunity of being heard to both
the parties and to hold an inquiry before passing any order under
Section 5 of the said Act. However, he submits that nothing was done
in this case to comply with the statutory provisions.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that
in the instant case, the Tribunal has also not complied with the Rules
framed under the Act, namely, the Assam State Maintenance and
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 5
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012. He submits that
the procedures to be adapted by the Maintenance Tribunal for dealing
with an application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 2007 has been
laid down in Chapter 2 of the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012. He submits that after
registration of an application for maintenance filed by the senior
citizen, and after appearance of the opposite parties, the matter has
to be referred to the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of the dispute.
He submits that in the event the conciliation fails for reasons
mentioned in Clause (i) to Clause (iv) of Rule 13 (1) of the aforesaid
Rules of 2012, the Tribunal shall have to give both the parties an
opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective claim
and thereafter, after a summary inquiry as provided in Section 8 (1) of
the Act, the Tribunal has to pass such order as it deems fit.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the
instant case from the scanned copy of the records of WP Case No.
4717/2024, which has been requisitioned in this case, there is no
indication that any order sheet has been maintained in the aforesaid
maintenance proceeding and there is nothing on record to indicate
that the opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective
claim was granted to the petitioners.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice as well as failed
to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement as prescribed in
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 6
the Act of 2007 as well as Rules of 2012. As such, he submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission,
the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the
Apex Court in the case of “Samtola Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors.“, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669.
11. On the other hand, Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel for
the respondent No. 1, has submitted that the impugned order has
been passed by the Maintenance Tribunal as per the provisions of the
law and same need not to be interfered with in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. He submits that in the instant
case, it is not an order granting maintenance, which has been passed
by the Tribunal in favour of the present respondent No.1 but an order
directing the present petitioners to vacate the residential complex,
which belongs to the respondent No. 1. He submits that by occupying
the residential complex belonging to the respondent No 1, the
petitioners have deprived the respondent No. 1 from peaceful
enjoyment of his property, which has also adversely affected the
dignity and security of the respondent No.1. As such, the order of
vacating passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has to be treated as an
order under Section 23 of the Act of 2007.
12. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the
requirement of complying with the mandate of Section 5 (3) of the
Act of 2007 as well as the mandate of Rule 13 of the Assam State
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 is
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 7
not mandatory under the facts and circumstances of this case, hence,
he submits that the impugned order may not be interfered with by
this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. In support of his
submission, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 has
cited following rulings:
(i) S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
and Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730.
(ii) Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and Ors., reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077.
(iii) Jaagdish Pitambar Pawar vs. Pitambar Pundalik Pawar and
Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3287.
(iv) Riddhi and Anr. vs. Pratibha and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1690.
(v) Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., reported in (2024) 1 High Court Cases (Bom) 125.
(vi) Amritya Bhatia and Ors. Vs. Baljeet Singh Bhatia, reported in
2020 (2) M.P.L.J.
(vii) Dattatreuy Shivaji Mane vs. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, reported in
2018 (6) Mh.L.J.
(viii) Nayana Sudhir Shah and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Premji Shah and Ors.,
reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J.CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 8
(ix) Smt. Pachamma vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2017
KAR 1217.
(x) Ram Chandra Goswami vs. State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C)
No. 1365/2024.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials
available on record. I have also gone through the copies of the
records of WP Case No. 4717/2024.
14. In this context, it is pertinent to mention herein that though by order
dated 08.04.2026, this Court directed the registry to call for the
records from the Tribunal. However, it appears that instead of sending
original records, the photocopies of the records of WP Case No.
4717/2024 were sent. Be that as it may, the photocopies of records
are also sufficient to arrive at a conclusion in this case. On perusal of
the copies of the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024, it appears that
the records are not properly maintained. There is no index of the said
record. Neither any order sheet of the aforesaid proceeding is there.
Apart from order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in WP Case No.
4717/2024, there is no other order passed by the Tribunal in the
aforesaid case, which is available in the said record.
15. After going through the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Assam State
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 9
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012,
it appears that, while adjudicating any dispute between any senior
citizen and his/her son/daughter/relative, the Tribunal, i.e.,
Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of Act of 2007, acts
as a quasi-judicial body and as such it has to follow the principles of
natural justice. Further, by being a quasi-judicial body, while
adjudicating any dispute, it has to maintain order sheet in the relevant
case/ proceedings as the order sheets serves as permanent sequential
diary of the case. It shows as to what happened on a particular day,
when the matter was taken up by the Tribunal. It also shows who
were present on the date when the matter was taken up and as to
what was done by the Tribunal and the parties on that day.
Maintenance of order sheets in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding
ensures adherence to accountability and maintenance of judicial
discipline. Maintenance of day-to-day order sheets in such
proceedings also ensures transparency and public trust and helps the
Appellate or Revisional Court to fully comprehend as to what
happened on a particular day when the matter was taken up for
hearing by the Tribunal. However, in the instant case, the records
available before this Court shows that apart from final order dated
29.01.2026, no other order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal,
Kamrup (M) in WP Case No. 4717/2024 is there on record.
16. In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court, more specifically
in the case of “S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 10
District and Ors.” (Supra), as well as by the Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of “Joybrata Kundu Vs. State of Assam and Others”,
(Judgment dated 19.05.2026 passed in WA No. 403/2022), there is no
doubt that while interpreting the provisions of Act of 2007, a
purposive interpretation has to be given to the word “maintenance”
and it is not confined to maintenance for the purpose of bare survival
only, but extends to all conditions necessary for living with dignity and
security by a senior citizen.
17. If the Maintenance Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the senior
citizen was unable to peacefully enjoy his own residence due to
continuous presence of the opposite parties, and same is regarded as
detrimental to the security and dignity of a senior citizen, the
Maintenance Tribunal can even pass an order of eviction against the
opposite parties. However, the Maintenance Tribunal, being a quasi-
judicial body, has to conform to the procedure prescribed by the Act
and Rules framed thereunder to arrive at a conclusion in a dispute
before it between the senior citizen and his or her children and
relatives (opposite parties).
18. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parent and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
provides that “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing,
residence and medical attendance and treatment. A Division Bench of
this Court in the case of “Joybrata Kundu Vs. State of Assam and
Others” (Supra) has observed that the inclusion of “residence” within
the definition of “maintenance” is of considerable significance and
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 11
cannot be rendered otiose by adopting a narrow interpretation of
financial maintenance. Thus, the obligation cast upon the children or
relative of a senior citizen under Section 4 of the Act of 2007 may
extend to providing a peaceful residence with security to a senior
citizen and if the peaceful residence is deprived of and the senior
citizen is subjected to insecurity within his own residential compound,
then the tribunal may interfere in such matters and may direct the
eviction of erring opposite parties (children/relatives).
19. However, to arrive at such a conclusion, the Tribunal has to follow the
summary procedure as provided in Section 8 of the Act of 2007.
Section 8 (1) of the Act of 2007 provides that in holding any inquiry
under Section 5, the Tribunal subject to any rules that may be
prescribed by State Government in this behalf may follow the
summary procedure as it deems fit. In the case of the State of Assam,
the Government has notified the Assam State Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2012 on 27th September
2012.
20. In the instant case, as already observed herein before, that there is
nothing on record to indicate that any opportunity was given to the
present petitioners to lead evidence in support of their respective
claims in terms of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam State
Maintenance and Welfare of Parent and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012.
As such, on that account alone, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 12
21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati in WP Case No. 4717/2024 is hereby set aside, and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for affording opportunity to
both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims
in pursuant to the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Assam State
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2012,
and thereafter, the Tribunal shall, after a summary inquiry, pass such
order as it deems fit, as expeditiously as possible.
22. Send back the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024, along with the
copy of this order to the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati
for compliance.
23. This CRP(I/O) is accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Amita Sharma
2026.07.14 14:10:13
+05’30’
CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 13
