Back
Rules Only Parent or Can Claim Under Act
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of the , 2007, the has held that only a parent or a person above 60 years of age can maintain a complaint under the Act. The court quashed a district collector’s order directing a couple to pay ₹6,000 per month as to a 57-year-old woman.
A Settlement Turned Sour
The case involved a woman, Shantakumari, who along with her mother and maternal uncle, had executed a in favour of a couple — Pradip C Nair and M.G Rajani. After the settlement, Shantakumari approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) seeking cancellation of the deed. When the RDO refused, she appealed to the District Collector of Kanniyakumari. The collector declined to cancel the deed but, in an unexpected twist, directed the couple to pay ₹6,000 per month as to Shantakumari under the .
Challenge on Jurisdictional Grounds
The couple challenged the collector’s order before the , arguing that the complaint was under the Act. Their counsel, , submitted that Shantakumari was only 57 years old at the time — below the statutory age threshold of 60 — and was not a parent of the petitioners. Therefore, the authorities lacked to entertain her complaint or appeal.
In a fair concession, the counsel for Shantakumari, , agreed with the legal position and sought liberty for her to file a fresh complaint after she turns 60, given that she had parted with valuable property.
No to Entertain
Justice M Dhandapani examined the records and observed that the complaint itself was from the outset. The court noted:
“Admittedly, on the date of filing of the complaint, the second respondent had not attained the age of 60 years and, therefore, she did not answer the definition of a '' under the provisions of the , 2007. She is also not the parent of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the complaint itself is and the authorities lacked to entertain the same.”
The court emphasised that the remedy under the Act is strictly available to parents (whether senior citizens or not) and to other senior citizens aged 60 and above. Since the complainant fell in neither category, the entire proceeding before the RDO and the collector was without legal basis.
Final Order and Liberty
Allowing the , the set aside the collector’s order dated . However, the court granted Shantakumari afresh after attaining the age of 60, if she is otherwise eligible in law. No costs were awarded.
Implications
The ruling reinforces the strict eligibility criteria under the and prevents lower authorities from extending the law’s protective umbrella to persons who do not meet the statutory definition. It serves as a reminder that tribunals under the Act must verify the age and relationship of the complainant before assuming .
