Proceedings Pending U/S 125 CrPC Not Bar On Maintenance Tribunal's Jurisdiction To Provide Residence To Senior Citizens/ Parents: Kerala HC

Justice D. K. Singh observed that the 2007 Act was enacted to prevent the deprivation of senior citizens by their children and to safeguard their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Act, which stipulates that maintenance can be claimed either under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 12 of the Act nut not under both, does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to grant residence to senior citizens.

“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.”

As per the facts, a 64-year-old father (2^nd respondent) filed a petition seeking maintenance before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was alleged that he was not taken care by his wife and children (petitioners) by providing residence and maintenance. It was alleged that the father who was living abroad came back with some ailments and he was not permitted to live in an apartment that was jointly owned by him and his wife, the petitioner.

The Maintenance Tribunal passed an interim order permitting the father to reside in the apartment subject to the final outcome of the maintenance proceedings pending before the Tribunal. His wife and children have approached the High Court challenging the interim order of the Tribunal providing him residence.

The Court found that the Tribunal granted interim relief to the father considering his financial status, age and health conditions. It also noted that the Tribunal has only passed an interim order for providing residence to the father and has not passed an order for maintenance as maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are pending.

The Counsel for Petitioners submitted that as per Section 12 of the Act, the Tribunal cannot grant maintenance to a person who has already initiated proceedings before Family Court under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming maintenance. It was argued that providing residence would amount to providing maintenance itself and Tribunal cannot grant such relief during the pendency of proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the father submitted that Family Court cannot grant residence under Section 125 CrPC. It was also submitted that the father is in his old age and that the apartment was in his joint ownership. It was argued that if the children are not allowing him to stay in the apartment, then they must arrange residence for the father.

The Court observed that the objective of the 2007 Act was to ensure the protection of life and liberty of the senior citizens and to ensure their welfare.

Court stated , “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 thus observed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to provide for residence was not affected by the pendency of maintenance proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of CrPC.

As such, the writ petition was dismissed.

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

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates R.Parthasarathy, B.Krishnan

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18370 OF 2024

Case Title: Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772

Click here to Read/Download Order