Maintenance Tribunal Can Order Residence for Senior Citizens Despite Pending Maintenance Proceedings: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that ongoing maintenance proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) do not limit the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal to order residence for senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act).

The Single-Bench of Justice D.K. Singh, emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted to protect senior citizens from deprivation and ensure their welfare.

The Court clarified that while Section 12 of the Act provides an option to claim maintenance under either the Senior Citizens Act or Section 125 of the CrPC—but not both—it does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to order residence for senior citizens.

The case arose from a petition filed by a 64-year-old father under Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, alleging neglect and deprivation of residence and maintenance by his wife and children. The petitioner had returned to India with health issues and was denied access to an apartment jointly owned by him and his wife.

The Maintenance Tribunal, considering his financial condition, age, and health, passed an interim order allowing him to reside in the apartment, pending the outcome of maintenance proceedings. His wife and children challenged the order in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief during ongoing maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s interim order, stating that:

1. Section 12 of the Senior Citizens Act, which bars simultaneous maintenance claims, does not limit the Tribunal's jurisdiction to provide residence for senior citizens.

2. Section 3 of the Act includes an overriding clause, ensuring its provisions take precedence over other laws.

3. The Act aims to safeguard the rights and welfare of senior citizens, including provisions for food, clothing, residence, and medical care.

Addressing the petitioners’ argument that providing residence equates to maintenance, the Court clarified that residence is a specific relief under the Senior Citizens Act and distinct from monetary maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. It also noted that the Family Court cannot grant residence as relief under the CrPC.

"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 said. 

The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that the Tribunal’s interim relief was within its jurisdiction and consistent with the objective of the Senior Citizens Act to protect the life and dignity of senior citizens.

"The jurisdictional facts necessary for exercising the power under Section 9 are present in this writ petition. 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....the provisions of Section 3 provide for having an overriding effect and nonobstante clause. The Tribunal has not awarded maintenance but has provided for residence to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not find that the order impugned suffers from an error of law or jurisdiction which requires this court to exercise plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed," the Court ordered. 

Cause Title: Mrs. Ameera & Ors v. The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode [Neutral Citation No. 2024:KER:90142]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Sudeep Aravind Panicker, A.S.Dileep, P. Binod, K.Y. Sudheendran, Suseela Dileep, K.N. Harishankar

Respondent: Advocates R.Parthasarathy, B.Krishnan

Click here to read/download the Judgment