Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, a beneficiary's employment does not absolve them from maintenance obligations to their parents-in-law.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 and the review petitioner in R.P. No.1157/2025 is a person who entered Government service under Dying-in-harness Scheme after the death of his wife, who was a Staff Nurse at the Government Medical College, Kozhikode.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a petition before the Maintenance Tribunal. The Maintenance Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay an amount of ₹7,000/-

per month to respondents 3 and 4 towards maintenance, as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.06.2023. In W.P.(C) No.42949/2024, the petitioner challenged the said Ext.P2 order and also Ext.P4 order passed in the execution proceedings.

3. While W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 was pending, the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 filed W.P.(C) No.24233/2025 seeking to direct the District Collector to pass orders on his representation for receiving monthly maintenance. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 10.07.2025, wherein the 1^st respondent-District Collector was directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner (the 3^rd respondent in W.P.

(C) No.42949/2024) within two months.

4. The petitioner thereupon filed R.P. No.1157/2025 alleging that this Court had delivered the judgment dated 10.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No.24233/2025, since the pendency of W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal was not brought to the notice of this Court. To that extent, there is an error in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24233/2025, contended the petitioner.

5. In the said circumstances, I deem it appropriate to consider and decide W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 first. Respondents 3 and 4 approached the Maintenance Tribunal contending that the petitioner who has obtained job under the Dying-in-harness Scheme consequent to the death of their daughter, is not maintaining respondents 3 and 4. The Maintenance Tribunal hence passed Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner to pay ₹7,000/- to respondents 3 and 4.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he will not fall under the definition of “children” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 and therefore he is not liable to pay any amount to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner would further argue that he was not given opportunity of being heard before passing Exts.P2 to P4 orders.

7. Respondents 3 and 4 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. Respondents 3 and 4 pointed out that neglect by individuals who secure government jobs under the Dying-in-harness Scheme to maintain the parents of the deceased has been addressed by the Kerala Government. The Government has issued G.O. dated 24.06.2024 to ensure the welfare of other dependants of the deceased. The petitioner's financial constrains do not negate his responsibility to maintain respondents 3 and 4.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42949/2024 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

9. The fact that the petitioner was appointed under a Scheme for appointment under the Dying-in-harness Scheme consequent to the demise of his wife who was a Staff Nurse at the Government Medical College, Kozhikode is not disputed. The relationship between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 is also not under dispute.

10. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted an application before the Maintenance Tribunal. The Maintenance Tribunal summoned the parties. The petitioner agreed before the Maintenance Tribunal that he is willing to pay ₹7,000/- towards maintenance to respondents 3 and 4. It was on the basis of the statement made