Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7433
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
SEEMOL @ SINDHU ( UNSOUND MIND) – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 18804/2023
ALIAS M.CHERIAN, K.M.RAPHY, BRISTO S PARIYARAM, SRI.V. GIREESHKUMAR, SMT.T.B.MINI, SMT.RESHMA GIRISH(K/001242/2022), SRI.BINOY DAVIS
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides a right of appeal only to the senior citizens and parents, and not to the children.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Maintenance Tribunal - Right of Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who is the daughter of the 4th respondent, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Maintenance Tribunal's order (Ext.P14) directing the children to pay ₹3,000 per month to the parents towards maintenance, and the District Collector's order (Ext.P16) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the Tribunal's order. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides a right of appeal only to the senior citizens and parents, and not to the children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the maintenance ordered by the Tribunal in Ext.P14 is not excessive, and the balance of convenience is in favor of the aged parents. The court also noted that the order impugned is of an interlocutory nature, and the petitioner can still put forward her contentions before the Tribunal at the time of the final hearing. The court directed the Tribunal to consider and finally dispose of MP No.145/2022 within three months.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides a right of appeal only to the senior citizens and parents, is unconstitutional?2. Whether the Maintenance Tribunal's order (Ext.P14) directing the children to pay ₹3,000 per month to the parents towards maintenance is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the issue of whether the right to appeal under Section 16 should be extended to parties other than parents and senior citizens need not be decided in this writ petition, as the maintenance ordered is a small sum and the petitioner can still put forward her contentions before the Tribunal at the time of the final hearing.2. The court found that the maintenance ordered by the Tribunal in Ext.P14 is not excessive, and the balance of convenience is in favor of the aged parents.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, directing the Tribunal to consider and finally dispose of MP No.145/2022 within three months.
Petitioner, who is daughter of the 4th respondent, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P14 order of the Maintenance Tribunal and Ext.P16 order of the District Collector. The petitioner seeks to declare that Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is unconstitutional to the extent of not providing a right of appeal to challenge the order passed against the respondents in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, 2007.
2. The parents of the petitioner filed Ext.P5 MP No.21/2020 before the Maintenance Tribunal praying that Ext.P3 Settlement Deed transferring a shop room to the petitioner, is to be set aside. The parents alleged that Ext.P3 Settlement Deed was created by undue influence and fraud on the parents. They also prayed that a monthly maintenance of ₹30,000/- be granted to the mother.
3. The petitioner states that the brother of the petitioner has given the entire building on rent including the shop room owned by the petitioner without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. He had created forged documents for this purpose. The petitioner therefore filed OS No.255/2020 before the Munsiff's Court praying to demarcate the shop room of the petitioner and to evict the tenants from the shop room.
4. Ext.P5 petition filed by the parents was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P8 order dated 27.10.2020. After two years, the parents filed MP No.145/2022, Ext.P9. The petitioner filed her objection in MP No.145/2022. The petitioner stated that MP No.145/2022 is not maintainable in view of dismissal of the earlier petition for the same relief.
5. The 2nd respondent-Tribunal passed Ext.P14 order directing the children to pay ₹3,000/- per month to the parents towards maintenance. Aggrieved by Ext.P14 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P15 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was rejected as per Ext.P16 order dated 27.03.2023 of the Appellate Tribunal.
6. The petitioner states that the Tribunal did not conduct an enquiry by taking oral or documentary evidence, before passing Ext.P14 order. The Tribunal did not consider the objection of the petitioner. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the parents have sufficient income for their maintenance. The mother is receiving ₹15,000/- as pension. Both the parents have medical insurance. The mother is owner of a commercial building.
7. The petitioner has no means of income and she is not capable of paying any amount to the parents. The petitioner is being maintained by her husband, who is a driver. The petitioner further urged that Section 16 of the Act, 2007 conferring a right of appeal only on the parents / senior citizens, is a clear discrimination.
8. Respondents 4 and 5, who are parents of the petitioner, resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit.
Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner is well settled and her husband is a government employee. The petitioner is conducting auto consultancy and driving school.
9. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the 5th respondent is getting monthly pension of ₹12,000/- which is not enough to maintain herself and the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent is suffering from many ailments. The 4th respondent is of unsound mind. He is suffering from schizophrenia and the 5th respondent has to spend huge amount for his treatment also. Respondents 4 and 5 have to pay a monthly rent of ₹6,000/- out of the pension.
10. The 1st respondent filed a statement. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Loksabha in 2009. It expanded Section 16 of the Act extending the provision of appeal to children/relatives also. The Amendment Bill after introduction in the Loksabha in 2009 had been referred to Loksabha Standing Committee. Based on the recommendations of the Committee, the Bills is being further modified. The Committee has no objection in extending the provision of appeal to children/relatives under o
