SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2280

SANJIB BANERJEE, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
K. Raju – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Veena Suresh
For the Respondents: K.S. Suresh

ORDER :

Sanjib Banerjee, C.J.

1. The petition is completely without any basis.

2. A perfectly simple provision lucidly enunciated is sought to be twisted to imply something that it clearly does not permit.

3. The matter pertains to Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Sub-section (1) of such provision permits only any senior citizen or a parent, who is aggrieved by an order of a tribunal passed under such Act, to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal. The first proviso to such provision adds that merely because an appeal has been filed by a senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance allowed would not permit the children or relative who are directed to pay the maintenance to suspend the payment of the maintenance as directed. The second proviso enlarges the period of receiving an appeal upon sufficient cause being indicated. Subsection (2) through sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Act pertain to the conduct of the appeal and do not reflect anything on who may prefer an appeal and who may be regarded as a person aggrieved.

4. Section 16(1) of the said Act of 2007 is quoted:

    "16. Appeals.-(1) Any senior citizen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top