Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri Gopal and Sri Mahesh, sons of the third respondent Smt Venkattamma, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: (1) an order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru District, in Case No. MYSAC MAG./SRCA/01/2019 (E-60893), directing each petitioner to pay a monthly sum of Rs.5,000 to their mother; and (2) an order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, in SCN No.14/2019, enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000 per month per son. The mother, an aged and ailing lady, had sought maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioners contended that the orders were arbitrary and excessive. The court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, observed that the orders were just and proper. The court noted that the Deputy Commissioner had enhanced the maintenance from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 per son, which was reasonable considering the needs of the mother. The court held that no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction, especially when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5 of the Act was available. The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the authorities were upheld.
Headnote
A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 4 - Maintenance of parents - Sons directed to pay monthly maintenance to mother - Assistant Commissioner ordered Rs.5,000 each, Deputy Commissioner enhanced to Rs.10,000 each - Held that the orders are just and proper, no interference warranted (Paras 1-3).
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging maintenance orders under Senior Citizens Act - Held that writ court may not interfere when alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5 of the Act is available, but on merits, orders found reasonable (Para 3).
C) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Maintenance of parents - Sons liable to maintain mother - Petitioners being sons of respondent mother are obligated to pay maintenance - Held that the orders are in accordance with law (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner directing the petitioners to pay maintenance to their mother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are upheld.
Law Points
- Maintenance of parents
- Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Section 4
- Section 5
- Section 23
- Writ jurisdiction
- Alternative remedy
- Reasonable maintenance
- Enhancement of maintenance
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (07) 121
WP No. 13182 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Sri. K R Lingaraju for petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel for R1 & R2; Sri. K S Karthik Kiran for Sri. Kapil Dixit for R3
Sri. Gopal and Sri. Mahesh
The Deputy Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner, and Smt. Venkattamma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner directing payment of maintenance to mother under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 22.05.2019 and 25.05.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were directed to pay monthly maintenance to their mother; they challenged the orders as arbitrary and excessive.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Commissioner ordered Rs.5,000 per month per son; Deputy Commissioner enhanced to Rs.10,000 per month per son.
Issues
Whether the orders directing maintenance are just and proper?
Whether writ court should interfere when alternative remedy of appeal is available?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the orders are arbitrary and excessive.
Respondents supported the orders as reasonable and in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
The orders directing sons to pay maintenance to their mother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are just and proper; the Deputy Commissioner's enhancement to Rs.10,000 per son is reasonable. Writ court will not interfere when alternative remedy exists and orders are on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners being the sons of 3rd Respondent - mother aged & ailing lady are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent -Assistant Commissioner respectively at Annexures-A & B.
The Assistant Commissioner has directed the Petitioners to pay to their mother a monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- each. However, the Deputy Commissioner has enhanced it to Rs.10,000/-.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders impugned are just and proper and therefore, no interference is warranted.
Procedural History
The Assistant Commissioner passed order on 22.05.2019 directing each petitioner to pay Rs.5,000 monthly maintenance to their mother. The Deputy Commissioner on appeal/enhancement passed order on 25.05.2022 enhancing maintenance to Rs.10,000 per month per son. Petitioners filed writ petition on 12.07.2023 challenging both orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Section 4, Section 5, Section 23
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
