The Allahabad High Court has observed that the children aggrieved by eviction orders passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have a right to challenge such orders before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act.

A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Indrajeet Shukla relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of UP 2019, wherein it was held that an appeal filed by children aggrieved by an eviction order passed by the Tribunal is maintainable.

The Court noted that although a textual reading of Section 16 does not indicate that an appeal at the instance of children aggrieved by an eviction order is maintainable, the Division Bench in Akhilesh Kumar (supra) had adopted a purposive interpretation of the provision to rule out "flagrant discrimination" between senior citizens or parents and children by conferring the right of appeal on one side while denying it to the other.

"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 observed while invoking the doctrine of stare decisis.

Importantly, the bench was also apprised that the Central legislature is already contemplating the issue of maintainability of appeal giving rights to children. However, the same has not yet been crystallized, the counsel representing the Union of India informed the bench.

With this, the Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Dr. Upasana Giri challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj, in proceedings under Section 7(1) of the 2007 Act.

During the hearing, the State placed reliance on several judgments of the Allahabad High Court and other High Courts expressing divergent views on whether children could maintain an appeal against eviction orders under the Act.

The State also relied on the 2019 Division Bench judgment in Akhilesh Kumar.

In Akhilesh Kumar (supra), the Allahabad High Court had taken into account the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India and the Madras High Court's judgment in Balamurugan v. Rukmani.

In both cases, the courts opined that Section 16(1) should be interpreted purposively, and that both sides had the right to appeal.

Taking into account these judgments and the fact that a subsequent decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Rita Roy v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer, also followed the view that an appeal by children aggrieved by an eviction order was maintainable, the Court said it had no reason to take a different view.

Now, turning to the facts of the Case, the bench noted that the petitioner (Child of the respondent No. 5) was willing to approach the appellate authority. Therefore, the Court relegated her to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, Prayagraj.

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to decide the entire appeal, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties, within 30 days from the date of its institution, as mandated under Section 16(6) of the Act.

The Bench also recorded an undertaking given by counsel for respondent no. 5 that the respondent would not take recourse to or press for eviction until the appellate authority decided the application for interim relief.

In view of the undertaking, the Court observed that there was no occasion to grant any further protection.

The High Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal along with an application for interim relief before the District Magistrate within three days.

It directed that, if the appeal and application were filed within that period, the District Magistrate must pass an appropriate order on the interim relief application positively on or before November 16, 2026.

Importantly, the High Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the challenge to the SDM's order on merits.

It permitted the appeal to be filed without interfering with the order dated October 3, 2026, leaving it to the appellate authority to examine the factual matrix and the applicable law independently.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.