Sri.Vedanth., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Pradeep

Nayak., for the petitioner, Sri.Nirupan., learned counsel on

behalf of Sri.Divakar.K., for respondent No.1, and Sri. Shiva

Reddy., learned HCGP for respondent No.2 have appeared in

person.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash

the

order

dated

27.06.2015

passed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner and Chairman, Tribunal of Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru in case

No.MSC/CR/07/2015-16.

The facts are simple and are stated as under:

The petitioner was married to the son of the first

respondent in the year 1992. A daughter was born to them in

- 3 -

the year 1995. The first respondent buys the property on

14.05.2003 and she unconditionally gifts the schedule ‘A’

property to the petitioner on 25.06.2003. The petitioner

constructs a residential duplex house on the schedule ‘A’

property. It is said that the son of the first respondent and the

petitioner separated owing to some personal differences.

As things stood thus, the first respondent filed a petition

under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against the petitioner. The Tribunal

allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to allow the first

respondent to stay on any of the floors in the building.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with

no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has filed this Writ

Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents

urged several contentions.

Learned counsel for the first respondent placed reliance

on the decision in the case of REJU AND ANOTHER VS. THE

- 4 -

MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND

OTHERS reported in 2016 SCC ONLINE KER 430.

4.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the

respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the

annexures with utmost care.

The facts have been sufficiently stated and the same do

not require a reiteration.

Sri.Vedanth., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting

his argument strenuously urged that the application filed by the

first respondent is not maintainable. Counsel also argued by

saying that petitioner admittedly is not the child of the first

respondent. Thus, for the first respondent to maintain an

application under the Act against the petitioner, the petitioner

would need to be a relative of the first respondent as

contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Act.

The main argument in the present case has been

centered around the applicability of the provisions of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007 (for short it is herein referred to as ‘Senior Citizens Act’)

to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence,

- 5 -

extracting the relevant provisions of the Act helps indicate the

right approach.

Section

2

(a)-

‘children’

includes

son,

daughter, grandson, and granddaughter but does

not include a minor;

2 (d) – ‘parent’ means father or mother

whether biological adoptive or stepfather or step-

mother, as the case may be, whether or not the

father or the mother is a senior citizen;

2(g)- ‘relative’ means any legal heir of the

childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in

possession of or would inherit his property after his

death.

The scheme of the Act contemplates the provision of

maintenance by children or relatives, to the benefit and welfare

of the parents and senior citizens. The provision for a parent or

a senior citizen to make an application for maintenance under

Section 5 of the Senior Citizen’s Act is circumscribed by the

mandate section 4 of the Act.

- 6 -

Suffice it to note that Section 4 of the Senior Citizen’s Act

in its scheme, enables a senior citizen (including a parent) who

is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the

property

owned

by

him,

to

make

an

application

for

maintenance against either:

1. One or more of his children, not being a minor in

the c