The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits monthly maintenance up to ₹10,000, not lump-sum compensation, ensuring due process for senior citizens' welfare.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the 1^st respondent/Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by which the 1^st respondent has granted a token compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the petitioners to respondents 1 to 5.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. Petitioners 1 to 4 are the children of the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent is said to be the step mother of petitioners 1 to 4. 5^th petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3 and wife of 4^th petitioner. The mother of petitioners 1 to 4 dies on 30-08-1996. During the lifetime of the mother, it is the averment in the petition, that father of petitioners 1 to 4 had married the 3^rd respondent/Smt. Nirmala H. Bohra. The father owned schedule properties. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent are said to have inherited certain immovable properties as described in the schedule. The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties claiming legitimate share thereon. When things stood thus, the 1^st petitioner caused a legal notice upon the 2^nd respondent seeking allotment of his share in the properties. It was also contended that on the death of the mother of petitioners 1 to 4, the 2^nd respondent got the katha of item No.1 of the schedule properties to his name. It is averred in the petition as to how the properties came to the hands of the 2^nd respondent or the entitlement of the petitioners.

3.2. When things stood thus, respondents 2 and 3 alleging that they have been continuously harassed by the petitioners, register a complaint against the petitioners before the elders’ helpline. The allegation was that they have been abused by the petitioners and had unauthorizedly occupied the premises belonging to respondents 2 and 3. After registration of the complaint to the helpline, respondents 2 and 3 are said to have been forcibly dispossessed, due to which they are staying in a rented premise. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent registers a complaint before the Sampangiramanagara Police Station alleging harassment by the petitioners. This was closed after summoning the petitioners and recording a non-cognizable report. The petitioners also instituted a suit in O.S.No.4336 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The trial Court, in the said suit, passes an order directing the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 to maintain status quo in respect of item No.1 in the schedule properties and the same is subsisting even today.

3.3. On the allegation that the respondents are now being interfered with or harassed, they approached the Assistant Commissioner under the Act by filing a petition. The Assistant Commissioner, on hearing the parties, holds that the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for a token compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly directs payment of Rs.5,00,0