The court affirmed the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction, focusing on whether tribunals overstepped legal boundaries, while also emphasizing the need to balance maintenance obligations between parents and their son.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. Since the same order passed by the Collector, Cuttack is impugned in both the Writ Petitions, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. This a dispute between the parents on one hand and their son on the other. W.P.(C) No.1519/2024 has been preferred by the parents while the other Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.31945/2024) has been preferred by their eldest son questioning the correctness of order dtd.27.9.2023 passed by the Collector, Cuttack in Maintenance(A) No.39/2022.

Case of the parents

3. They claim that their elder son has not been coming to their house nor taking care of them since the past four years and is residing at Angul with his wife. The parents are unable to take care of themselves. As such, they filed a case being Maintenance Case No.9/2023 before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “2007 Act”).

Case of the Son:

4. Pursuant to notice, the son entered appearance and filed his objection basically stating that his parents are able to maintain themselves as his father is a retired Government employee and is in receipt of pension. That apart, he earns money from his agricultural lands, fishing, dairy farm etc. As a son, he has sent money to his parents for their livelihood, which can be known from the statement of bank accounts. He also provides food, clothes and medical treatment regularly as and when required. Having availed loan of Rs.6 lakhs for marriage of his sister, he is overburdened with re-payment of the loan liability. That apart, he has always requested his parents to stay with him at Rengali, but they have refused.

Order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal:

5. The Maintenance Tribunal took note of the salary slip of the son and found that he was getting Rs.67,020/- per month. Taking into consideration his present status, the cost of living at Rengali and the fact that had the parents agreed to stay with him at Rengali as offered by him, it would have entailed some expenditure, the Maintenance Tribunal by order dated 06.2.2022 allowed the application by directing the son to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to his father and mother.

Order of the Appellate Authority:

6. The son preferred appeal before the Collector being Maintenance Appeal No.39/2022. In course of hearing before the appellate Court, the son was willing to pay Rs.3,000/- each to his parents instead of Rs.5,000/- each as directed. The Collector noted the above fact and also the report of the Tahasildar, Mahanga regarding the financial status of the parents. As such, by order dated 01.2.2023, the appeal was allowed in part by modifying the order passed the Maintenance Tribunal to the above extent.

7. The parents challenged the order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10467/2023. By order dated 17.5.2023, a coordinate bench of this Court held that while adjudicating the appeal, the Collector should have taken into consideration the requirements of the parents vis-a-vis the capacity of the son to pay. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Collector for fresh adjudication.

Order of the appellate authority on remand:

8. After remand, the appellate authority passed a detailed order taking note of the income of the parents from different sources as per the report of the Tahasildar and found that they are financially stable. As such, they are not satisfactorily covered under the provision of Section 4(1)