The Kerala High Court has affirmed that ongoing maintenance proceedings before a Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) do not restrict the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal from directing the provision of residence to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Justice D. K. Singh emphasized that the 2007 Act was enacted to protect senior citizens from neglect by their children and ensure their constitutional rights. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Act, which allows senior citizens to claim maintenance under either Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 12 of the Act (but not both), does not limit the Tribunal's authority to grant residence. "The Tribunal, therefore, after taking into consideration the age of the 2nd respondent, his financial position, and physical health, has ordered to provide residence to him. Section 12, which gives an option for claiming maintenance, does not in any way bar the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to provide residence for a senior citizen or the parents, as the case may be. Further, the provisions of Section 3 provide for having an overriding effect and non-obstante clause. The Tribunal has not awarded maintenance but has provided for residence to the 2nd respondent," the judgment stated.
In this case, a 64-year-old father (2nd respondent) filed a petition under Section 5 of the 2007 Act, alleging neglect by his wife and children, including denial of residence and maintenance. The father, who had returned from abroad due to health issues, claimed he was denied access to an apartment jointly owned by him and his wife. The Maintenance Tribunal granted an interim order allowing the father to reside in the apartment pending the final resolution of the maintenance petition. The wife and children challenged this order in the High Court.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had considered the father's financial situation, age, and health while granting interim relief for residence. It further pointed out that the Tribunal had not passed any maintenance order, as the proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC were still pending. The petitioners argued that Section 12 of the Act precluded the Tribunal from granting relief during the pendency of maintenance proceedings in the Family Court. They contended that providing residence effectively amounted to granting maintenance, which the Tribunal was not empowered to do. Conversely, the father's counsel maintained that the Family Court lacks authority to order residence under Section 125 of the CrPC. Given the father's advanced age and joint ownership of the apartment, the counsel argued that the children were obligated to provide residence if they refused to let him stay in the apartment.
The Court underscored the purpose of the 2007 Act, which is to ensure the welfare, life, and liberty of senior citizens. "The Act has been enacted by the Parliament with the objective of ameliorating the deprivation caused to the parents by the children. The object of the Act is to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and the welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution of India and to provide for the institutionalization of suitable mechanisms for the protection of the life and property of the senior citizens. Section 2(b) defines the maintenance, which would include provisions for food, clothing, residence, and medical attendance and treatment. Section 3 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect with a non-obstante clause."
The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to provide residence is not affected by ongoing maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode
