Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay at Goa Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes quashed a maintenance order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a fresh inquiry, including all children of the applicant and ensuring compliance with statutory procedures. It also declared that legal representation by advocates must be permitted before such tribunals, citing the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The petition challenged the order dated 12 October 2023 issued by the Deputy Collector acting as the Maintenance Tribunal, which directed the petitioner—a son of the applicant—to pay monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 to his mother. During the proceedings, the petitioner deposited ₹1,30,000 in arrears, which the Court allowed to be released to the mother. Further monthly deposits were made until March 2025.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Rejection Of Possession Claim Over 53 Acres In Raidurg | Title Based On Unregistered 1982 Agreement Is Legally Void And Possession Not Proved

The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct any inquiry as mandated under Section 6(4) of the Act and neglected the procedural requirements under the Goa Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. He argued that the Tribunal did not ascertain the individual liability of each of the applicant’s children and did not implead the other siblings, especially three daughters, in the proceedings.

The Tribunal’s records showed that the respondent mother had four children—two sons and three daughters. Only the petitioner and one other son were included in the case; the three daughters were neither impleaded nor summoned. The petitioner asserted that there was no inquiry conducted in the presence of all the children, violating Section 6 of the Act. He also pointed out that there was no reference to the Conciliation Officer as mandated under Section 6(6) of the Act and Rule 10 of the Goa Rules.

Additionally, the petitioner filed an application to be represented by a legal practitioner, citing the Kerala High Court judgment in Adv. K.G. Suresh v. Union of India, which had declared Section 17 of the Maintenance Act—barring legal representation before tribunals—as ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected this request, adhering to the original restriction under Section 17.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, relying on precedent from the Kerala, Delhi, and Karnataka High Courts that upheld the right to legal representation in such proceedings. These judgments, the petitioner argued, applied nationally and invalidated the bar imposed by Section 17 of the Maintenance Act.

The Court recorded, “There appears to have been a complete go by given to the procedures laid down under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.” It noted, “No reference has been made on the conduct of the inquiry or to ascertain the liability of each of the children to maintain the Applicant.”

It observed, “These are not empty formalities, but are issues to be dealt with by the Tribunal under Section 6 of the Act, which Tribunal has totally failed to follow.”

Referring to the Kerala High Court ruling, the Court stated, “Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is declared as ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

It further quoted, “The restriction imposed is taken away and… Advocates… are entitled to appear before all the Courts and the Tribunals, subject to Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

On the national applicability of the Kerala judgment, the Court recorded, “The effect of such a declaration by a High Court… will have effect throughout the territory of India.”

Accordingly, the Court found the Tribunal’s rejection of the petitioner’s request for legal representation unlawful and held, “The order dated 06.04.2023 is therefore contrary to the declared law and is consequently quashed and set aside.”

The Court directed, “The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Case No. DC/SDO/MAP/Maint-Claim/2020 is remanded back to the Maintenance Tribunal at Mapusa for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.”

The Tribunal was instructed to “immediately refer the dispute to the Conciliation Officer,” and to “conduct conciliation in the matter and try to arrive with an amicable solution.”

It was further ordered that “the Petitioner has provided this Court with the addresses of the three daughters… who shall also be impleaded in the proceedings before conciliation commences.”

In case conciliation fails, the Tribunal must “carry out a summary inquiry in terms of Section 8 of the Act” and “give due weightage to the amount deposited” by the petitioner while passing any new order.

Also Read: Investigation At Threshold | Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses Bail To APPSC Secretary And Contractor In Group-I Evaluation Scam Citing Need To Probe Rs 1.14 Crore Payment

The entire process was “to be completed within three months from today i.e., by 30.09.2025.” The Court also noted, “The parties may be represented by a legal practitioner or Advocate if they so desire.”

The petitioner’s undertaking to pay ₹3,000 monthly until the matter is resolved was also acknowledged: “This amount could also be considered by the Tribunal while passing of its order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Sahil Sardesai, Advocate

Case Title : Mr. Santosh Savlaram Morajkar v. Mrs. Sumitra Savlaram Moraskar & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:919

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 219 of 2025

Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes

[Read/Download order]