Maintenance award upheld despite appellant's claims of financial incapacity; children collectively liable for senior citizen support.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge on broadly two grounds: namely, that the 2^nd respondent - his senior citizen mother, has three other sons and husband who are not offering her any maintenance; and secondly, the sum awarded against him is excessive because he is an ‘autorikshaw’

driver, earning not more than Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that his client does not say that he will not maintain his mother, but that the demand that he should pay her Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive because, she has three other sons as also husband (his father), who are providing for her. He impressed upon us that, being an ‘autorikshaw’ driver, his client does not even earn what has been ordered to be paid to his mother; and therefore, that he has been asked to perform an impossible task.

He thus reiteratingly prayed that this Appeal be allowed.

3. On hearing Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz as afore, we asked him what amount his client is willing to commit for the benefit of his mother, to which, he replied that it can be not more than Rs.3,000/-, going by the income earned by him.

4. Sri.K.Balachandran – learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent- senior citizen, in response, submitted that the facts are not innocuous as it has been presented because his client is insisting that she be paid proper maintenance by the appellant, since she had gifted him a property under the hope that she would be provided for by him. He, however, conceded that his client has moved the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the document, which has been dismissed; but that an Appeal against the same is still pending. He explained that it is in such circumstances that the Statutory Maintenance Tribunal granted only an award of maintenance, not entering into the question of cancellation of document under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short); but maintained that his client is justified in seeking cancellation of the document for the reason that the appellant is not even taking care of her and has transferred the property to his father-in-law. He then predicated that the stand of the appellant, that there are others to take care of his mother is, wholly untenable and without any basis; and hence, prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

5. We have examined the impugned judgment on the touchstone of the afore rival submissions.

6. We notice that the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, concluding that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is not excessive and is within the statutory limit. We further see that that the learned Judge has, in fact, left liberty to the appellant to invoke Section 10 of the ‘Act’ and seek alteration of allowance, if he is able to establish that he does not have the income to honour the amount now directed.

7. We find in favour of the holdings of the learned Single Judge because, this is not a case where the Maintenance Tribunal has yet invoked Section 23 of the ‘Act’. There could be many reasons for this, but as matters now stand, the appellant has only been asked to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to his mother.

8. As we have noticed above, it is the specific case of the appellant that he is willing to pay maintenance, but to a sum of not more than Rs.3,000/- and for this, he cites his lack of financial capacity and nothing else. In other words, if this Court is to reduce the maintenance allowance to a sum of Rs.3,000/-, the appellant would stand satisfied.

9. In such scenario, it is pe