1. Petitioner herein is son and respondent No.1 herein is his step mother whose application under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act of 2007') has been granted by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2007 by the impugned order directing payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount and which has been challenged by way of this writ petition.

2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting maintenance to the respondent which is shockingly high and the petitioner is incapable of making payment of the said amount. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to maintain the respondent by keeping her with him but she is not ready and willing to stay with him and therefore the order passed by Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

3. Ms. Aarti Chandra Dutt, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the Tribunal is absolutely justified in granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month as the petitioner is working as a government teacher in the government education department and earning sufficient money to maintain his mother and he is financially capable of making payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The Act of 2007 has been enacted to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

6. The word “parent” has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act of 2007 which includes step-father and step-mother. Respondent Smt. Surekha Bhoi, widow of late Shri Malikram Bhoi, aged about 76 years is the stepmother of the petitioner. The word “children” as per Section 2(e) of the Act of 2007 includes son, daughter, grand-son and grand-daughter but does not include a minor. The word “maintenance” has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 2007 which includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. Section 4 of the Act of 2007 provides for entitlement of maintenance by senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him against one or more of his children not being a minor and in the case of a childless senior citizen against his relatives who would inherit his property. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 4 the obligation of the children to maintain his or her parents extends to the need of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. Section 5 inter alia provides for making application for maintenance by a parent if he is incapable, to the Tribunal which is empowered to make monthly allowance during the pendency of proceedings also. Maintenance has to be granted by the Tribunal from the date of order or if so ordered from the date of application for maintenance as the case may be. Section 9 provides that if the children or relative neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, a Tribunal may on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children to make a monthly allowance to the senior citizen which shall not exceed Rs. 10,000/- per month.

7. In an application filed by the respondent herein claiming maintenance from her son i.e. the petitioner herein, the Tribunal made a summary inquiry and found that the property left by her husband is being possessed by the petitioner herein and the respondent herein has been left alone and she is unable to maintain herself and therefore the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the