Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court addressed the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a daughter-in-law and her daughter challenging an order of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had directed the son and daughter-in-law to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month to the mother and also ordered the daughter-in-law and son to vacate the premises. The son accepted the maintenance obligation, but the daughter-in-law contested the eviction order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the daughter-in-law could not maintain the petition as she had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Act, but argued that the daughter-in-law was not a 'relative' as defined under Section 2(g) and thus could not appeal. The court examined Section 16, which provides for an appeal by 'any senior citizen or a parent', and noted the anomaly that it did not expressly include other aggrieved parties. Relying on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India and the Bombay High Court's Division Bench decision in Jagdish Pitamber Pawar v. Pitamber Pundalik Pawar, the court applied purposive interpretation and the doctrine of casus omissus to hold that the right of appeal under Section 16 is available to any affected party, including a daughter-in-law. The court reasoned that the term 'relative' must be interpreted inclusively to avoid rendering the proviso to Section 16(1) otiose. Consequently, the daughter-in-law was entitled to file an appeal. The petitioners sought and were granted permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority. The interim relief was extended until 26 June 2024.
Headnote
A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Right of Appeal - Section 16 - Purposive Interpretation - The court considered whether the daughter-in-law, not expressly covered under the definition of 'relative' in Section 2(g), can maintain an appeal under Section 16. Relying on Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India and Jagdish Pitamber Pawar v. Pitamber Pundalik Pawar, the court held that the term 'relative' must be interpreted inclusively to include daughter-in-law, applying principles of purposive interpretation and casus omissus to avoid anomaly. (Paras 2-13) B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Definition of Relative - Section 2(g) - The court held that the daughter-in-law falls within the ambit of 'relative' for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 16, as the right of appeal is available to any affected party. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a daughter-in-law can file an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against an order passed by the Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority. Interim relief granted on 8/11/2023 was directed to continue till 26th June, 2024.
Law Points
- Purposive interpretation
- casus omissus
- right of appeal
- definition of relative
- Section 16 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
