Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Skanda Sharath, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division (respondent No.1). The order was passed on a petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the petitioner. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance and vacate the property. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the parents were not in need of maintenance, having other children and sufficient means. The High Court admitted the petition and heard it finally with consent. The court examined the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly Section 4 which imposes a liability on children to maintain their parents only if the parents are unable to maintain themselves. The court found that the parents had other children (respondent Nos.4 and 5) who were also liable, and there was no finding that the parents were unable to maintain themselves. The court held that the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Section 4 - Son's liability - The Tribunal under the Act can only order maintenance against children if the parents are unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or property. In this case, the parents had other children and were not shown to be in need, hence the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5)
B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Transfer of property - The Act does not empower the Tribunal to order eviction or transfer of property from a son to parents without a finding of need. The order directing the son to vacate the property was beyond the Tribunal's powers. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has jurisdiction to order maintenance against a son when the parents are not in need of maintenance and have other children liable to maintain them.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division, is quashed.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Section 4
- Section 23
- Son's liability
- Parents' need for maintenance
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 22
Writ Petition No.1171 of 2019 (GM-RES)
Mr. S.N. Bhat (for petitioner), Mr. Rajashekhara Seeri (for caveator/respondent Nos.2 and 3), Mr. Vijay Kumar A. Patil (Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1)
Asst. Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division; Sri P. Rajagopal; Vijaya A.; Smt. R. Shree; R. Bharathi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Maintenance Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order directing him to pay maintenance and vacate the property, on the ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the parents were not in need of maintenance.
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal had passed an order on 04.12.2018 in a petition filed by the parents (respondent Nos.2 and 3) directing the petitioner to pay maintenance and vacate the property.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has jurisdiction to order maintenance against a son when the parents are not in need of maintenance and have other children liable to maintain them.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the parents were not in need of maintenance, having other children and sufficient means.
The respondents (parents) contended that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its jurisdiction under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a child is liable to maintain a parent only if the parent is unable to maintain himself or herself from his or her own earnings or property. The Tribunal's order without a finding that the parents were unable to maintain themselves is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
On admitted facts, pure questions of law arise for consideration in this writ petition viz., (i) Whether a claim for maintenance under the Act can be made against a son when the parents are not in need of maintenance and have other children liable to maintain them.
The Tribunal under the Act can only order maintenance against children if the parents are unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or property.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division. The petition was admitted and heard finally with consent of the parties.
Acts & Sections
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Section 4, Section 23
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
