Bombay High Court

Mikhail KantrooversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 9 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal are appealable under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and a stay may be granted to preserve the petitioner's rights pending such appeal.

Summary

The petitioner, Mikhail Kantroo, challenged an order dated 20 February 2026 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which directed him to deliver possession of premises to a senior citizen respondent. The Court noted a precedent (Jagdish Pitambar Pawar v. Pitambar Pundalik Pawar & Ors.) that such Tribunal orders are appealable by the children or relatives of the senior citizen under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the senior citizen respondent is also a senior citizen aged 72, and execution of the order before filing an appeal would cause grave prejudice. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits but granted a two‑week stay of execution to enable the petitioner to file an appeal and an interim stay application before the Appellate Tribunal. The petition was disposed, with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal within two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Maintenance Tribunal is appealable under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the filing of an appeal.

Legislation cited

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — s. 16

Subjects

Maintenance Tribunal
Senior citizen
Section 16
Stay of execution
Appeal
Writ petition
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act

Judgment

                                                                  30-WP-3142-2026.DOC

Ajit
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3142 OF 2026

Mikhail Kantroo                                                        ...Petitioner
      Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors.                                          ...Respondents

Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, for the Petitioner.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for the Respondent-State.

                                       CORAM:            N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                       DATE :            09th MARCH 2026


P.C.:

1.      Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 20 th February

2026 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,

directing the Petitioner to deliver the possession of the subject premises

to the senior citizen (Respondent No.3).

3.      In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish

Pitambar Pawar Vs Pitambar Pundalik Pawar & Ors, 1 an order passed by

the Maintenance Tribunal is appealable at the instance of the children

or relatives of the senior citizen as well. Since the Petitioners have an

efficacious statutory remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the

Act, 2007, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

1       Writ Petition No. 36 of 2023, dated 29th November 2023.

                                                   1/2
                                                    30-WP-3142-2026.DOC

4.    The learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, invites the

attention of the Court to the fact that the Petitioner No.3 is also a senior

citizen, and is 72 years of age. If the impugned order is executed before

the Petitioners approach the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioners would

suffer grave prejudice.

5.    In view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the

peculiar facts of the case, the petition stands disposed with liberty to the

Petitioners to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 16 of the Act,

2007. In the event, the Petitioners file an appeal under Section 16 of the

Act, 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of two weeks,

and prefer an application for interim stay to the order passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal shall hear and decide the

interim application for stay as expeditiously as possible.

6.    To facilitate the Petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal

and file the appeal along with an application for stay to the impugned

order, there shall be a stay to the execution and operation of the

impugned order for a period of two weeks from today.

7.    The petition stands disposed.

                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                      2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…