The court's decision emphasized the importance of procedural compliance with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the limitation on the maintenance amount under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. N. Laddha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28th July 2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai Suburban District, acting as Chairman of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on a complaint made to the Tribunal by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 is the mother of petitioner no.1 as well as respondent no.4. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of the petitioner no.2. The reliefs sought were directions to the petitioners to vacate and hand over the possession of Flat no. 604, Siddhi Apartments, Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai (in short ‘the said flat’) to the respondent no.3. Further, a direction is also sought to order the petitioners to pay Rs.1,32,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon to the respondent no.3, which the respondent no.3 and her husband had paid to the petitioners’ firm-Neel Controls.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed an order and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.25,000/- monthly maintenance allowance to respondent no.3 from August 2022 and vacate and hand over the possession of the said flat to respondent no.3.

5. Mr Pradeep Thorat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that respondent no.3 is not the sole owner of the said flat. Petitioner no.1 is entitled to 1/10th share in the said flat. The flat in question is not independent, and the same is merged in flats nos. 601 to 603, owned by the petitioners. There is no separate entrance to this flat. He submitted that the Tribunal had not followed the summary procedure contemplated under Section 5(3), Section 6 and Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the said Act’). Also, the procedure under Rules 7 and 13 of the Rules was not followed. Additionally, the Tribunal did not permit respondent no.2 to lead the evidence. He submitted that the impugned order does not give any reason for directing the handing over of possession of the said flat to respondent no.3. It has been submitted that respondent no.2 had accepted additional documents from respondent no.3 after closing the matter for orders.

6. According to Mr Pradeep Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the amount of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month granted by respondent no.2 is beyond jurisdiction because the maximum amount of maintenance can be granted under Section 9 is Rs.10,000/- only. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal could not have granted a relief sought by respondent no.3 in her complaint. He draws our attention to the complaint itself to contend that the same was primarily for eviction of the petitioners from the flat and recovery of the alleged loan amount and not for maintenance. Further, it has been submitted that respondent no.3 had stayed with the petitioners in flats nos. 601 to 604 till 2020 without any complaint. Under Family Arrangement dated 26th August 2009, the petitioners are entitled to flat no. 604. Arbitration proceedings are also pending between the parties. It has also been submitted that the proceedings were collusive and were an attempt by respondent no.4 to remove the petitioners from the said flat. Lastly, it has been submitted that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has not given any reasoning for concluding and therefore it cannot sustain in the eyes of laws. Additionally, he relied on (i) Mavila Sathi w/o Surendran v/s. State of Kerala, LAWS(KER) 2016 11 70.,(ii) Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Shinde v/s. Rambhau Govind Shinde & Anr., Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2016 decided on 01.02.2017.,(iii) Mr. Melroy Fernandes v/s. Mr.Caetano Fernandes & Anr., Writ Petition No. 174 of 2019 decided on 05.07.2019., (iv) Ritika Prashant Jasani v/s. Anjana Niranjan Jasani & Ors., 2021 (5) ALL MR 352., (