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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, A. S. GADKARI, JJ
The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5823 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pradip Chavan, Adv. Yogesh Naidu, Adv. Wesley Menezes, Adv. Sabiya Kazi, Adv. Anukul Seth, Adv. Delilah Jeffeerey
For the Respondents: Dr. Birendra Saraf, A.G., Smt. M.M.Deshmukh, Acting PP, Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, Adv. Gauri Joglekar

Senior citizens have statutory rights to maintenance and welfare under the Maintenance of Parents Act, placing obligations on children to provide care, with courts empowered to secure their rights and properties in cases of neglect.

Headnote:(A) The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(a), 4, 5, 23, and 24 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(s), 12, and 13 - The case involves the neglect of a senior citizen by her son, who raised allegations of medical negligence against the hospital while refusing to take his mother home and make outstanding payments. The petitioners sought directions to ensure the mother's wellbeing and care. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 24, 32, 35).

(B) Senior citizen's right to care - The court emphasized that under the Welfare Act, children have a statutory obligation to maintain their parents, which is unconditional and not based on possession of property. (Paras 23, 24).

(C) Protective orders - The court indicated that the Maintenance Tribunal can issue orders to secure and protect the properties of a senior citizen abandoned by their children. (Paras 25, 28).

(D) Fund for care - The court directed that funds deposited by the son be taken into account for the care of the senior citizen. (Paras 35).

Findings of Court:
The conduct of the respondent-son indicated abandonment of the senior citizen and failure to fulfill his duty, which may constitute a legal offence under the Welfare Act (Paras 31, 32).

Issues: Whether the respondent's actions amount to neglect or abandonment of his mother.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the obligation of children to care for aging parents and defined the rights of senior citizens to maintenance and welfare under statutory obligations.

Result: Petition allowed with directives for the mother’s immediate care and measures to protect her wellbeing.

Table of Content
1. neglect of care for a senior citizen (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claims and disputes regarding medical negligence (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. state's obligation for healthcare under article 21 (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. interpretation of welfare legislations (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. dereliction of duties by authorities (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. claim of abandonment and its implications (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. property rights and obligations under welfare laws (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. rights of persons with disabilities (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
9. well-being and medical needs of the patient (Para 31 , 32)
10. protecting the properties of the neglected elderly (Para 33 , 34)
11. specific directives for care and payment (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT [Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J] :-

1) This is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court and strikes an emotional chord as the Court is called upon to look into a matter, where a son has failed to look after and care for his own ailing mother and instead, thought it appropriate to give precedence to raise and pursue legal remedies. A very unfortunate and sad situation has arisen, where a frail and ailing 76 years old mother/patient is left under the care of a hospital, neglected by an able son on the purported basis that, the treating hospital is allegedly guilty of medical negligence. The mother remains alone, under the care of the Hospital, deprived by the son of emotional and moral support which is most required by parents/senior citizens, when indisposed.

2) On 24th August 2025, Mrs. Mohini Puri, a 76 years of lady and mother of the Respondent No.3, was admitted by the Respondent No.3 to the Emergency Department of Petitioner No. 2 hospital, for imbalance and weakness. On the initial examination, it was revealed that, the patient having height of 5 ft weighed only 45 kgs which was indicative of mal-nourishment. The patient was diagnosed with acute right middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarct with mass effect of the right lateral ventricle. The Petitioner No. 2 Hospital has been taking care of the medical needs of the patient since August 2025. The Respondent No.3 after making initial payments, on the ground of medical negligence has refused and failed to make the balance payment of the medical bills and also refused to take discharge of his mother/patient from the Petitioner No.2 Hospital. The outstanding bill, as contended to be payable is about Rs 16,00,000/ -.

3) In this background, the Petitioners interalia seek appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondent No.1 i.e Senior Police Officer, Bandra Police Station to take charge of the patient Mrs. Mohini Puri and shift her to her own residence. The Petitioners seek directions to the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2/Senior Citizens Tribunal to take steps as permitted and in accordance with the law.

4) The Petitioner No.1, The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society is a Public Charitable Trust which runs and administers the Petitioner No.2 i.e. The Bandra Holy Family Hospital (Hospital).

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS

5) Mr Pradip Chavan, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submitted that: -

5.1) On 24th August 2025, Mrs. Mohini Puri (patient) was admitted by her son i.e Respondent No.3 in the Petitioner No.2 Hospital. The patient, was in malnourished condition, extremely weak and weighed only 45 kgs.

5.2) The Respondent No.3 has only paid an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-, and an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is due and payable to the hospital. The Respondent No.3 has refused to take discharge and take the patient/his mother to her own house. Respondent No.3 with view to avoid making payments of the balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, raised untenable/baseless allegations of medical negligence against the Petitioner No.2 Hospital.

5.3) The Respondent No.3 has at all times been un-cooperative, extremely difficult with the treating doctors, nurses and support staff. Respondent No.3 since the first week of October, 2025,

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 Back to top