Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while recommending that the Union Government reconsider the statutory ceiling of ₹10,000 prescribed under Section 9 for maintenance to senior citizens. The Court noted that the ceiling was outdated and inadequate in present circumstances. Though quashing the impugned order as ex parte and beyond the scope of the Act, the Court directed the petitioners to pay interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month each until the matter is freshly adjudicated by the authority

The matter concerned proceedings initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The respondents, being senior citizens, had approached the Assistant Commissioner under Section 9 of the Act, seeking maintenance and other reliefs. By an order dated 06.03.2021, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioners to pay a lump sum of ₹5,00,000 and to hand over possession of the property to the respondents.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Mere Neighbourhood Quarrels Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide | Conviction Under S.306 IPC Set Aside

The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court of Karnataka. They contended that the order was passed ex parte without affording them an opportunity to be heard, and that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to award lump sum compensation or direct restoration of possession in such terms. It was submitted that Section 9 of the Act provides for maintenance up to a ceiling of ₹10,000 per month, and the impugned order, which directed payment of ₹5,00,000, was contrary to the statutory framework.

The petitioners further argued that their liability, if any, should be confined to monthly maintenance as provided under the Act, and not to an arbitrary lump sum or possession orders. They stressed that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction and acted beyond the powers conferred by the statute.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners had failed in their duty to maintain the senior citizens, and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was justified given the circumstances. They urged that the petitioners should not be allowed to escape responsibility, and that the maintenance claim was necessitated by neglect.

The statutory provisions invoked in the proceedings were primarily Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which prescribes the right of senior citizens to claim maintenance from children or relatives, and fixes a ceiling of ₹10,000 per month as maintenance that can be ordered by the Tribunal. The challenge before the High Court was therefore twofold: first, to the validity of the Assistant Commissioner’s order granting lump sum compensation and directing restoration of possession; and second, to the adequacy of the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 9 in present-day circumstances.

The Court observed: “The Assistant Commissioner passes an order on 06-03-2021 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of `5,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent and further directs to hand over the possession of the property. The order is passed ex-parte.”

It stated: “Section 9 of the Act permits the Tribunal to award monthly maintenance up to a maximum of 10,000/-. The Act does not empower the Tribunal to award lump sum compensation of 5,00,000/-.”

The Court recorded: “Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is unsustainable as it travels beyond the scope of the power conferred under Section 9 of the Act.”

At the same time, the Court observed: “There cannot be a complete denial of maintenance to the 2nd respondent who is a senior citizen. The petitioners cannot be permitted to evade their statutory duty of maintaining the senior citizen.”

The Court further stated: “The ceiling of `10,000/- prescribed under Section 9 of the Act appears to be outdated. It does not reflect present-day realities. It is for the Union Government to revisit Section 9 to consider enhancement of the ceiling in tune with current economic conditions.”

The Court recorded: “Since the order of the Assistant Commissioner is quashed, the matter requires to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with law.”

It also stated: “Pending such consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to pay interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent so that he is not left in lurch.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court | Sexual Assault on Minor ‘Unpardonable’ | Society Must Be Vigilant Towards Protecting Women and Children From Weaker Sections

The Court ordered: “The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06-03-2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law.”

“Pending such consideration, the petitioners shall pay to the 2nd respondent a sum of `10,000/- per month each from April 2021 till the date of this order. From the date of this order, the petitioners shall pay to the 2nd respondent a sum of`30,000/- per month each, until the matter is finally decided by the Assistant Commissioner.”

“It is recommended that the Union Government revisit Section 9 of the Act, which prescribes a ceiling of `10,000/- as maintenance, and consider its enhancement in light of present-day conditions.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, High Court Government Pleader Sri M. Vinod Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Sri Sunil H. Bohra & Others v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.13448 of 2021 (GM – RES)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna