1. This is an unfortunate litigation between old aged parents and middle aged sons. The Petitioner herein impugned the order dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune in Criminal/SR/2/2015 confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007(for short “the said Act”) and Rules made thereunder.

2. The Petitioner herein happens to be the elder son of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 happens to be the younger brother of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner had challenged the impugned Order before the Vacation Court (Coram : P.D. Naik, J). It was submitted before the Vacation Court that the Appeal was rejected by the Additional Collector on 30th April, 2016 directing the Petitioner to vacate residential premises, constructed and owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was submitted that the reasoned order of the Appellate Authority was not available and therefore, the advocate representing the Petitioner had no idea as to whether any reasoned order is passed. He had drawn the attention of the Vacation Court to the single line operative order. It appears that the learned APP had placed on record the communication received by Nigadi Police Station directing the police to execute order dated 30th April, 2016 and file a compliance report. It was also submitted that the Petitioner was willing to take care of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the eventuality that the order is stayed. Considering the submission, this Court (Coram : P.D. Naik, J) was pleased to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On the date of filing of the petition, spare copies were not supplied and therefore, notices could not be issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The spare copies were supplied only on 16th May, 2016. Thereafter on 10/6/2016, the matter was listed for admission. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had caused their appearance. On 15/7/2016 interim relief was continued.

4. Before reverting to the facts of the case, it would be necessary to see the need for enactment of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Filial responsibility laws are derived from England's Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601, which made blood relatives responsible for the support of their family members, including aging parents. In fact, such a law can be traced back to the third century in Roman Society. The moral obligation to support one's aged parents can be found in many different cultures and religions. A peculiar tension arises in the eventuality when this moral obligation crystallizes into a duty enforceable by law. Just like all other religious code, the need for enactment of the present act was the question which needed to be answered as to whether besides filial responsibility laws, no legal rules satisfies what duty, if any, children owe to their parents. The argument that, such coercive legislation may do little to encourage positive and normal relationship and merely enables indigent and helpless parents to sue their children for financial support or seek enforcement of mental peace against their children cannot hold any substance as by enacting this Act, the State has taken upon itself the guardianship of Senior Citizens and old aged infirm parents.

5. It is in this backdrop that the facts of the present case need to be examined which are as follows:

(i) On 29/7/2015 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application before the District Collector under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The respondent No. 1 had contended in his application that at the time of filing of the application, he was about 78 years old. That in 1991 he retired from M/s. Advani Orlicorn Company, where he was working as machine shop supervisor. Since it was a private job, he was not entitled for pension.