IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.22332 of 2011 Date of decision December 1, 2011 Harjap Singh and another ....... Petitioners Versus Sub Divisioinal Magistrate and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order which is challengeed is an appealable order under Section 16 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Counsel for the petitioners states that since the order is illegal he is challenging it by means of writ petition. An order of claim for maintenance under the Act which was previously rejected in my view, cannot conclude the issue of entitlement at all. It depends on particular facts which are brought before the Court when the application is filed, if the petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy shall lie only by convasing the correctness of the order by appeal and not by means of a writ petition. 2. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 1, 2011 archana