Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 514
High Court of Karnataka
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
H.S. Subramanya & Another
Versus
H.S. Lakshmi & Others
Writ Petition Nos.45043 & 45319 of 2011 (GM-RES)
Decided on: 08-09-2014
For the Petitioners:Pundikal Ishwara Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, N. Jagadish Baliga, Advocate, R4, H.V. Manjunath, AGA.
Headnote:MAINTENANCE & WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - Section 4: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Maintenance and Welfare of parents and senior citizens - Order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal directing the petitioners and the third respondent to pay maintenance to their mother/the first respondent Challenged - Held, The object of the Act is not to punish a person for neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. It is to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the parents and senior citizens, who are in distress by a summary procedure. The provision has to be liberally construed as the primary object is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. They are intended to achieve this social purpose. - With a view to have a simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance by the suffering parents and to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain them, to make provisions for setting up old-age homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older persons, to provide better medical facilities to the senior citizens and to make provisions for protection of their life and property, the Act has been enacted.
Ageing has become a major social challenge because of the decline in the joint family system. A large number of elderly persons, particularly, widowed women are no9t being looked after by their families. They are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and are not being provided with financial support. To combat this social challenge, there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Traditional care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly people are not being looked after by their family. Though, there is a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which parents can claim maintenance from their children but the procedure is time consuming and expensive.
MAINTENANCE & WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - Section 6 & 8: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Enquiry by the Maintenance Tribunal - Procedure to be followed - Held, Section 6 of the Act lays down the jurisdiction and procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. Under this provision, an application for maintenance may be a senior citizen or a parent against any children or relative in any District where the senior citizen or parent resides or where the children or relatives reside.
It is clear form Section 8 of the Act that while holding the enquiry, the Tribunal has to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The word ’summary’ implies a short and quick procedure instead of or as an alternative to the more elaborate procedure ordinarily adopted or prescribed for deciding a case. Section 8 of the Act authorities the Tribunal to follow a short and quick procedure for expeditions disposal of the case. Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 does not contain the expression ’trail’. The Tribunal in its discretion has not directed the parties to lead evidence as it was unnecessary to decide the application filed by the first respondent. There is not any error in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal.
After following the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, the tribunal has directed the petitioners and the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- every month. The maintenance payable by the petitioners is for sustenance of their mother, who is unable to maintain herself.
MAINTENANCE & WELFARE OF PARENTS & SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - Sections 4 & 7: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Maintenance to mother - Mother aged 88 years - Properties belonging to father were already bequeathed in favour of three sons and one daughter - Mother residing with her widowed daughter - Two sons had stopped payment of maintenance of Rs.500/- each per month, after mother and daughter had filed suit for partition of properties, plea by said two sons that third son would be beneficiary if maintenance amount is paid to mother not acceptable - Order directing all three sons to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to their mother, held proper.
1. In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure 'G' in No.GA.06/2011-12/212 dated 5.11.2011 whereby the Maintenance Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu, (for short 'the Tribunal') has directed the petitioners and the third respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to their mother, the first respondent under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('Act' for short).
2. The first respondent is a widow, presently aged about 88 years. ii is her contention that her husband H.S.Srinivasa died on 2i 6.2002. Late H.S.Srinivasa had executed a Will dated 12.4.1994 bequeathing his properties in favour of his children. A provision was made in the Will for payment of maintenance to the first respondent. She was to be paid Rs.500/- per month by each of her sons. The second respondent is the only daughter of the first respondent. Late H.S.Srinivasa had bequeathed a house and land measuring 1 Vi acres in her favour also. The first respondent was staying with her daughter, who is also a widow.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that they were paying monthly maintenance of Rs.50G/-each to their mother regularly. The 3 respondent has not paid maintenance to the first respondent in terms of the Will. He has purchased major portion of the properties bequeathed in favour of the second petitioner. The third respondent has forced their mother to file the application before the Tribunal claiming maintenance. The third respondent is pocketing the maintenance amount paid to their mother.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.120/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge, Madikere, claiming partition and separate possession of 2/5th share in the property. The petitioners received a notice from the 4th respondent in a proceedings initiated by the first respondent claiming maintenance under the Act. The third respondent has not been made a party to the said proceedings and the proceedings are engineered by the third respondent. However, the 4th respondent has passed the order directing payment of maintenance as stated above.
5. The first respondent has filed statement of objections. It is contended that the first respondent, is not assisted by anybody for her sustenance. The 4th respondent after holding proper enquiry has directed deposit of the maintenance as above. The suit filed by her daughter and herself for partition of the properties has no relevance to this case. She has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in possession of only 6.6 acres of land and they are getting an income of about two lakhs of rupees annually. The second petitioner is living with his wife, who has sustained a fracture of her hip joint. The first petitioner is a heart patient. After filing of the suit by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, petitioners have stopped payment of maintenance. Section 8 of the Act contemplates holding of an enquiry. The claim made by the first respondent is not a bonafide claim. The Tribunal has passed the order without holding an enquiry. If the maintenance is paid in terms of the order, the third respondent will be the beneficiary and not the first respondent.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has sought to justify the impugned order. It is submitted that the first respondent is now aged about 88 years. She is not in a position to maintain herself. The court below has directed her sons to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month, which is most reasonable. He further submits that the procedure contemplated under Section 8 is a summary procedure. Holding of trial is not contemplated under this provision. The 4th respondent has issued notices to the petitioners as also the third respondent. The petitioners have filed objections to the said notice. After considering the said objections, the order has be
