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

2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 17439

$~35

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 2559/2022 & CM APPL.7328/2022

SMT. BIRINDER KAUR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Zubeda Begum & Mr. Zubin

Sengh, Advocates (M-9868119078)

versus

SHRI BALTEJ SINGH SRA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate for R-

1 (M-9810008481)

Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Advocate for

GNCTD.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Advocates:
ZUBEDA BEGUM

A person must be a citizen of India to be considered a "senior citizen" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - CITIZENSHIP - SENIOR CITIZEN - OCI CARD HOLDER - PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a US citizen and OCI card holder, filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking maintenance from her son. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as non-maintainable, holding that the petitioner was not a citizen of India and therefore not a "senior citizen" within the meaning of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the petitioner was a US citizen and not a citizen of India, and therefore did not meet the definition of "senior citizen" under Section 2(h) of the Act. The court also noted that the petitioner was not the legal parent of the respondent, as she had stated in her application that the respondent was her brother in the eyes of the law after adoption.

Issues: Whether a senior person above the age of 60 years who holds an OCI card and owns property in India can maintain a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not a "senior citizen" within the meaning of the Act because she was not a citizen of India. The court also held that the petitioner was not the legal parent of the respondent, and therefore could not maintain a petition under the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable.

%

11.01.2023

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.

None appears for the GNCTD.

3.

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Smt. Birinder

Kaur seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 14th November 2021

passed by the Ld. Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens. By the said order, the ld. Tribunal had dismissed the

complaint filed by the Petitioner as non-maintainable in light of the fact that

the Petitioner was a citizen of the USA and not a citizen of India. The order

passed by the Ld. Tribunal is on the strength of Section 2(h) of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section

2(h) of the said act reads as:

(h) "senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of

India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above

4.

The relevant portion of the order passed by the ld. Tribunal is

extracted below:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2024 at 11:35:04

The main question which has to be answered in

this application is whether applicant is covered within

the definition of parent as defined in Section 2(d) or

covered within the definition of senior citizen as defined

in Section 2 (h) of the Act.

Even though, the applicant counsel argued that

the applicant is a biological mother of the respondent;

the applicant herself in her application dated 25.10.2019

filed before this tribunal stated that “the respondent who

is biological son, however is brother to her in the eyes of

law, after adoption”. Hence, it is clear that the legal

relationship between the applicant and respondent is that

of brother and sister not of mother and son. Hence, the

applicant is not the legal parent of the respondent and

not covered within the

definition under Section 2 (d) of the Act.

It is also proved that the applicant is a US citizen and

not a citizen of India. As per Section 2 (h); senior citizen

means any person being a citizen of India, who has

attained the age of 60 years or above. Admittedly, the

applicant is not a citizen of India at the time of filling

application. Hence, the applicant is not covered within

the definition of senior citizen as defined under Section 2

(h) of the Act.

In view of the above facts; the application is

dismissed as non maintainable.

5.

The present petition raises an important issue as to whether a senior

person above the age of 60 years who holds an OCI card and owns property

in India can maintain a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

6.

All parties to file written submissions and judgment which they rely

upon at least one week before the next date of hearing.

7.

List for hearing on 19th July, 2023.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

JANUARY 11, 2023/Rahul/AM

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2024 at 11:35:04

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top