Children's obligation to maintain elderly parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be excused due to financial constraints or alternative living arrangements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3. Though Ext.P3 order was challenged in appeal and thereafter, by way of review, the same were dismissed as per Exts.P4 and P5 orders respectively. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the petitioner.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent/father expired. According to the petitioner, she has no means to pay any amount as maintenance to the parents; and the tribunal, without proper consideration of the issue, had directed to pay ₹5,000/- each as maintenance to the parents.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit contending that the medical expenses incurred by them are considerably high and that they are unable to meet the same from their income. It is further contended that the petitioner has not complied with Ext.P3 order and has paid only an amount of ₹2,500/-. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Along with I.A. No. 1 of 2025, the petitioner produced Exts.P6 to P9 additional documents to show that the husband of the petitioner has undergone an eye surgery and is also suffering from various health issues, and that a further surgery has been postponed due to financial constraints. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2025, it is alleged that when the second respondent/father was alive, the third respondent/mother had filed a petition before the Family Court, Attingal, seeking maintenance from him. It is further alleged that upon the death of the second respondent/father, the entire properties devolved upon the third respondent/mother and that, she is deriving more income therefrom which is more than sufficient to meet her expenses. It is also alleged that though the petitioner requested the third respondent/mother to come and stay with her, she was not willing to do so. According to the petitioner, she is neither capable of nor liable to pay any amount towards maintenance, and that the direction in Ext.P3 order to pay ₹5,000/- per month is illegal and unjustifiable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent/mother is presently residing with the second daughter, who is well placed and capable of taking care of her. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed, has no independent means of income, and is surviving on the meagre income derived from her husband’s old age pension.

5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that due to financial constraints, she is not in a position to pay any amount towards maintenance and is living on the income of her husband. The additional documents produced by the petitioner/daughter reveal the treatment undergone by her husband in the Aravind Eye Hospital as well as the Sree Gokulam Medical College during the years 2022 and 2025. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 & 3, they have not stated as to whether the petitioner/daughter is having any income to pay the maintenance ordered by the tribunal. However, as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007, the petitioner being the daughter cannot be exonerated from the liability of taking care of the mother, who is a senior citizen. The age of the third respondent/mother is not reflected from any document or Ext.P3 order, by which the tribunal directed the petitioner to pay ₹5,000/- each to the parents. After passing Ext.P3 order, the father expired. The fact that the petitioner is the daughter of the third