Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Skanda Sharath, son of P. Rajagopal and Vijaya A., 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. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his parents, respondents 2 and 3, who were aged 74 and 71 years respectively. The petitioner contended that his parents were not 'senior citizens' as defined under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and that they had other children who were liable to maintain them. The court admitted the writ petition and heard it finally with consent. The court examined the definitions under the Act, noting that 'senior citizen' means a person who has attained the age of sixty years, and 'child' includes son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter. The court held that the parents were indeed senior citizens, but the son was not liable to pay maintenance because the parents had other children and the property was not transferred to the son. The court quashed the Tribunal's order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Definition of Senior Citizen - Section 2(d) - The Act defines 'senior citizen' as any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above. In the present case, the father was 74 years and mother 71 years, thus they are senior citizens. (Para 3)
B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Liability of Children - Section 4 - The obligation to maintain a parent under Section 4 is on children who are capable of maintaining their parents. The son, being a child, is liable to maintain his parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. (Para 3)
C) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Section 3 - The Tribunal has jurisdiction to order maintenance only if the parents are senior citizens and unable to maintain themselves. The Tribunal must also consider the financial capacity of the child. (Para 3)
D) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Order of Maintenance - The Tribunal's order directing the son to pay maintenance was quashed as the son was not liable because the parents had other children and the property was not transferred. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claim for maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be made against a son who is not a 'child' as defined under the Act, and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order maintenance when the parents are not 'senior citizens' as defined.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The 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
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Section 4
- Section 2(d)
- Section 2(f)
- Section 3
- Section 23
- Definition of Senior Citizen
- Liability of Children
- Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 58
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 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his parents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner 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, and an interim stay of the said order.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that his parents were not 'senior citizens' as defined under the Act and that they had other children who were liable to maintain them.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division, passed an order dated 04.12.2018 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his parents.
Issues
Whether a claim for maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be made against a son who is not a 'child' as defined under the Act?
Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order maintenance when the parents are not 'senior citizens' as defined?
Whether the son is liable to pay maintenance when the parents have other children and the property is not transferred?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that his parents were not 'senior citizens' as defined under the Act and that they had other children who were liable to maintain them.
The respondents argued that the parents were senior citizens and the son was liable to maintain them under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, defines 'senior citizen' as a person who has attained the age of sixty years. The obligation to maintain parents under Section 4 is on children who are capable. However, the son is not liable to pay maintenance if the parents have other children and the property is not transferred to the son. The Tribunal's order was quashed as the parents had other children and the property was not transferred.
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 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be made against a son who is not a 'child' as defined under the Act, and (ii) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order maintenance when the parents are not 'senior citizens' as defined.
The court held that the parents were senior citizens, but the son was not liable to pay maintenance because the parents had other children and the property was not transferred.
Procedural History
The Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru North Division, passed an order dated 04.12.2018 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his parents. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which was admitted and heard finally on 13.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Section 2(d), Section 2(f), Section 3, Section 4, Section 23
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
