The Maintenance Tribunal must conduct due inquiry and include all liable parties in maintenance claims, while parties are entitled to legal representation despite statutory restrictions deemed ultra vires.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Menezes, J.

1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr. Sahil Sardesai appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme waives service for Respondents.

3. This petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2023, wherein the Maintenance Tribunal (Deputy Collector) under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“The Act”), had directed the Petitioner, who is the son of the Respondent No.1 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to his mother (Respondent No.1). During the pendency of this petition, the Petitioner has deposited the arrears of Rs.1,30,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) before the Registry of this Court, which was released under order of this Court dated 03.07.2024 in favour of the Respondent No.1. By order dated 03.07.2024, this Court had directed the Petitioner to continue payment of the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month, last of which was deposited on 06.03.2025. In total, the Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only).

4. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without holding any inquiry contemplated under Sub Section 4 of Section 6 of the Act and there is no reasoning whatsoever in the order to sustain the direction to the Petitioner to pay to Respondent No.1, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. It is further submitted that the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the State Government have also not been followed.

5. I have perused the impugned order and gone through the records of the proceedings.

6. Proceedings under the Act are commenced by an application under Section 5 , by which the Senior Citizen or as in this case, a parent files an application seeking maintenance against his/her children. The application may be filed under Sub Section 5 of Section 5 of the Act for maintenance against one or more persons. Proviso to Sub Section 5 permits that such children against whom the application is filed, may seek impleadment of other persons liable to maintain a parent in the application for maintenance. It is a matter of record which is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 is the mother of four children of which the Petitioner is one son and Respondent No.2 is her other son. She has three other daughters namely (1) Laxmi Ankush Arlekar, (2) Pratima Gokuldas Arlekar and (3) Ramini Ramdas Kavlekar who have not been impleaded in the proceedings. The records of the Tribunal also do not disclose what was the inquiry conducted and why the Tribunal has not impleaded all children of the Applicant, who would be responsible to maintain the Applicant/Respondent No.1 herein.

7. Sub Section 3 of Section 6 , which provides for the procedure and the jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal to inquire into the application, empowers the Tribunal to exercise all powers of a Judicial Magistrate First Class to secure the attendance of the children of the Applicant. In the present case, it appears from the records that the Tribunal has not impleaded the three daughters to the proceedings.

8. Sub Section 4 of Section 6 requires that all evidence to such proceedings be taken in the presence of the children or the persons, who are by law required to maintain the Applicant. Here again, in the present proceedings, it appears that no evidence or any inquiry was conducted by the Tribunal in the presence of the children, three of the daughters having not even having been summoned. There appears to have been a complete go by given to the procedures laid down under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.

9. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no reference has