As noticed above, the petitioners are the sons of the first
respondent. The first respondent is aged about 88 years. The
properties belonging to the father of the petitioners have already
been bequeathed in favour of the petitioners and the respondent
Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners have admittedly stopped payment of
maintenance of Rs.500/- each per month after respondent Nos.1
and 2 filed a suit for partition of the properties. The Tribunal has
directed the petitioners and the third respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- every month. The maintenance payable by the
petitioners is for sustenance of their mother, who is unable to
maintain herself. I do not find any substance in the submission of
the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the third respondent will
be the beneficiary if the order of the Tribunal is implemented. The
1st respondent is residing with her daughter, who is also a widow.
In fact, the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month may not
be sufficient to the 1st respondent to maintain herself. It is not the
case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent has any other income.
I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that third
respondent will be the beneficiary if maintenance amount is paid to
the 1st respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NOS.45043/2011 & 45319/2011 (GM-RES)
Between:
H.S.Subramanya, Vs H.S.Lakshmi,
Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)465 Karnat
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
5.11.2011 in No.GA.06/2011-12/212 on the file of the Maintenance
Tribunal and Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Further Orders this day,
the Court passed the following:
ORDER
In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the
validity of the order at Annexure ‘G’ in No.GA.06/2011-12/212
dated 5.11.2011 whereby the Maintenance Tribunal and the
Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu, (for short ‘the
Tribunal’) has directed the petitioners and the third respondent to
pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to their mother, the first
respondent under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Act’ for short).
2. The first respondent is a widow, presently aged about 88
years. It is her contention that her husband H.S.Srinivasa died on
21.6.2002. Late H.S.Srinivasa had executed a Will dated 12.4.1994
bequeathing his properties in favour of his children. A provision
was made in the Will for payment of maintenance to the first
respondent. She was to be paid Rs.500/- per month by each of her
sons. The second respondent is the only daughter of the first
4
respondent. Late H.S.Srinivasa had bequeathed a house and land
measuring 11⁄2 acres in her favour also. The first respondent was
staying with her daughter, who is also a widow.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that they were paying
monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- each to their mother regularly.
The 3rd respondent has not paid maintenance to the first respondent
in terms of the Will. He has purchased major portion of the
properties bequeathed in favour of the second petitioner. The third
respondent has forced their mother to file the application before the
Tribunal claiming maintenance. The third respondent is pocketing
the maintenance amount paid to their mother.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.120/2010
on the file of the Civil Judge, Madikere, claiming partition and
separate possession of 2/5th share in the property. The petitioners
received a notice from the 4th respondent in a proceedings initiated
by the first respondent claiming maintenance under the Act. The
5
third respondent has not been made a party to the said proceedings
and the proceedings are engineered by the third respondent.
However, the 4th respondent has passed the order directing payment
of maintenance as stated above.
5. The first respondent has filed statement of objections. It is
contended that the first respondent is not assisted by anybody for
her sustenance. The 4th respondent after holding proper enquiry has
directed deposit of the maintenance as above. The suit filed by her
daughter and herself for partition of the properties has no relevance
to this case. She has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are in possession of only 6.6 acres of land and they are
getting an income of about two lakhs of rupees annually. The
second petitioner is living with his wife, who has sustained a
fracture of her hip joint. The first petitioner is a heart patient. After
filing of the suit by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, petitioners have
6
stopped payment of maintenance. Section 8 of the Act
contemplates holding of an enquiry. The claim made by the first
respondent is not a bonafide claim. The Tribunal has passed the
order without holding an enquiry. If the maintenance is paid in
terms of the order, the third respondent will be the beneficiary and
not the first respondent.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 has sought to justify the impugned order. It
is submitted that the first respondent is now aged about 88 years.
She is not in a position to maintain herself. The court below has
directed her sons to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month,
which is most reasonable. He further submits that the procedure
contemplated under Section 8 is a summary procedure. Holding of
trial is not contemplated under this provision. The 4th respondent
has issued notices to the petitioners as also the third respondent.
The petitioners have filed objections to the said notice. After
considering the said objections, the order has been passed. The 4th
7
respondent has not committed any procedural irregularity while
passing the order.
8. Having regard to the contentions urged, the question for
consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in directing
payment of maintenance in a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
first respondent from her sons, the petitioners and the third
respondent herein?
9. Ageing has become a major social challenge because of
the decline in the joint family system. A large number of elderly
persons, particularly, widowed women are not being looked after
by their families. They are forced to spend their twilight years all
alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and are not being
provided with financial support. To combat this social challenge,
there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for
the older persons. Traditional norms and values of the Indian
society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due
8
to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly
people are not being looked after by their family. Though there is a
provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which
parents can claim maintenance from their children but the
procedure is time consuming and expensive. With a view to have a
simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance by
the suffering parents and to cast an obligation on the persons who
inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain them, to
make provisions for setting up old-age homes for providing
maintenance to the indigent older persons, to provide better
medical facilities to the senior citizens and to make provisions for
protection of their life and property, the Act has been enacted.
10. Section 4 states that a senior citizen including parent
who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of
the property owned by him against one or more of his children not
being a minor or in the case of childless senior citizen, is entitled to
9
make an application against his relative, who would inherit his
property claiming maintenance. The said provision is as under:
“4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens:
(1) A senior citizen including parent, who is unable to
maintain himself from his own earning or out of the
property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an
application under Section 5 in case of –
(i)
parent or grand-parent, against one or
more of his children not being a
minor;
(ii)
a childless senior citizen, against such
of his relative referred to in clause (g)
of Section 2.
(2) The obligation of the children or relative as the
case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the
needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a
normal life.
(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or
her parent extends to the needs of such parent either
10
father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that
such parent may lead a normal life.
(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and
having sufficient means shall maintain such senior
citizen provided he is in possession of the property of
such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of
such senior citizen;
Provided that where more than one relatives are
entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the
maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the
proportion in which they would inherit his property.”
11. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides for making an
application for maintenance. Under this provision, an application
for maintenance under Section 4 may be made by a senior citizen
or a parent as the case may be or if he is incapable, by any other
person or organization authorized by him or the Tribunal may take
cognizance suo motu. An ‘organisation’ means any voluntary
association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
which is clear from the explanation appended to this Section.
11
Under sub-section (2) of Section 5, the Tribunal has power to direct
payment of interim maintenance of such senior citizens including
parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct pending
disposal of the application made under Section 5.
12. Section 6 lays down the jurisdiction and procedure to be
followed by the Tribunal. Under this provision, an application for
maintenance may be made by a senior citizen or a parent against
any children or relative in any District, where the senior citizen or
parent resides or where the children or relatives reside. It provides
that the Tribunal has to issue process on the receipt of an
application and the Tribunal will have the powers of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class for securing the attendance of the children or
relative. It also provides that the Tribunal may before hearing the
application refer the same to a Conciliation Officer for amicable
settlement.
12
13. Section 8 provides for the summary procedure in case of
inquiry, which is as under:
“8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry: (1) In
holding any inquiry under Section 5, the Tribunal may,
subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State
Government in this behalf, follow such summary
procedure as it deems fit.
(2) The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil
Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and
of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of
compelling the discovery and production of documents
and material objects and for such other purposes as
may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed
to be a Civil Court for all purposes of Section 195 and
Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf,
the Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating and
deciding upon any claim for maintenance, choose one
or more persons possessing special knowledge of any
13
matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the
inquiry.”
14. While interpreting this provision, the object of the Act
has to be kept in mind. The object is not to punish a person for
neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. It is to
provide simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the parents and
senior citizens, who are in distress by a summary procedure. The
provision has to be liberally construed as the primary object is to
give social justice to parents and senior citizens by compelling
those who can support those who are unable to support themselves.
They are intended to achieve this social purpose.
15. It is clear from Section 8 that while holding the enquiry,
the Tribunal has to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case. The word ‘summary’
implies a short and quick procedure instead of or as an alternative
to the more elaborate procedure ordinarily adopted or prescribed
for deciding a case. Section 8 authorises the Tribunal to follow a
short and quick procedure for expeditious disposal of the case. Sub-
section (1) of Section 8 does not contain the expression ‘trial’. The
Tribunal in its discretion has not directed the parties to lead
evidence as it was unnecessary to decide the application filed by
the first respondent. I do not find any error in the procedure
adopted by the Tribunal.
16. As noticed above, the petitioners are the sons of the first
respondent. The first respondent is aged about 88 years. The
properties belonging to the father of the petitioners have already
been bequeathed in favour of the petitioners and the respondent
Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners have admittedly stopped payment of
maintenance of Rs.500/- each per month after respondent Nos.1
and 2 filed a suit for partition of the properties. The Tribunal has
directed the petitioners and the third respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- every month. The maintenance payable by the
petitioners is for sustenance of their mother, who is unable to
15
maintain herself. I do not find any substance in the submission of
the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the third respondent will
be the beneficiary if the order of the Tribunal is implemented. The
1st respondent is residing with her daughter, who is also a widow.
In fact, the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month may not
be sufficient to the 1st respondent to maintain herself. It is not the
case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent has any other income.
I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that third
respondent will be the beneficiary if maintenance amount is paid to
the 1st respondent.
17. In the result, writ petitions fail. They are accordingly
dismissed. The amount in deposit in this case shall be transferred to
the 4th respondent forthwith. The 4th respondent is directed to
disburse the amount in favour of the first respondent herein
(Smt.H.S.Lakshmi-petitioner before the 4th respondent) either
personally or through her power of attorney holder.
16
18. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions as above,
I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment