Maintenance Tribunal's Enquiry Process Is Inquisitorial Than Adversarial : Kerala HC [Read Judgment]
The High Court of Kerala has observed that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 has to follow an enquiry process as similar to inquisitorial system than adversarial system.The Court also observed that the Senior Citizens Act is not intended at dispute resolution but to promote measures to secure the welfare and interest of the...
The High Court of Kerala has observed that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 has to follow an enquiry process as similar to inquisitorial system than adversarial system.
The Court also observed that the Senior Citizens Act is not intended at dispute resolution but to promote measures to secure the welfare and interest of the senior citizens and parents.
The judgment authored by Justice Muhammed Mustaque observed :
"The legislative background and object of conferring power on the Tribunal clearly demands that enquiry as contemplated under the enactment is similar to the process adopted in an inquisitorial system. The duty on the Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act therefore is to elicit truth. For that he can refer to pleadings and evidence. But that is not decisive. The Tribunal has to independently enquire into the truth and take measures to protect the well being of senior citizen/parents. The Tribunal is actually not deciding any dispute in like manner as involved in an adversarial system, but is only taking measures to protect the senior citizen/parents. The focus of the enquiry, therefore, is the protection of the senior citizen or parents as the case may be, through stages of decision taken by him at different level".
"the scheme of the Senior Citizens Act is not intended at dispute resolution but to promote measures to secure the welfare and interest of the senior citizens and parents...the Tribunal has to follow the procedure for enquiry as in an inquisitorial system, and not as in an adversarial litigation."
In this case, the petitioner, one Ms. Manju GV, is the daughter of the first respondent one Mr. Gopinathan Pillai who is a senior citizen. The father had executed a gift deed in favour of the daughter in the year 2014. Subsequently, he approached the Maintenance Tribunal to revoke the deed invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules (Senior Citizens Act), 2007. Though the Tribunal declined the prayer under section 23 of the Act, it also ordered the petitioner to provide necessary facilities to the first respondent to protect his well being. Further, the father approached the Appellate Authority in appeal. The appeal was allowed with an order revoking the deed and the daughter filed a writ petition challenging the said order.
Since the pleadings of the first respondent (senior citizen) stated that the deed was fraudulently obtained by undue influence and coercion, the petitioner contended that it was a civil dispute. And hence it was submitted by the petitioner that this dispute can be resolved only by a Civil Court and not by a Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The Single Bench examined the nature of power and procedure to be followed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The court by looking at legislative object of the enactment said that, "traditional norms and values of the Indian society emphasizes on the duty of taking care of elders. In traditional Indian society, duties of children towards one's parent were considered as a debt owed to them...These religious values are universal values acknowledged and encompassed in all civilized society or class.
In the modern era, due to urbanisation and vast expansion in search for livelihood, parents have been treated as a liability because of their old age and physical infirmities."
The court opined that the parliament enacted the Senior Citizens Act to uphold the dignity and respect of a senior citizen at the time of old age. And that State had serious concern about the challenges faced by the people in their old age. While saying that the scope of an enquiry by a Tribunal or authority will have to be considered, the court also said that Section 7 of the Senior Citizen Act refers to the Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal and Section 5 refers to the application for maintenance which can be filed by a senior citizen or a parent or any organization authorised by him if he is incapable. The court also added that the tribunal also has the power to initiate suo motu action.
"Section 23 gives power to the Tribunal to declare transfer of deed as void in certain circumstances referred therein. It states that after the commencement of the enactment, transfer of property of a senior citizen by way of gift or otherwise, is subject to the condition that transferor would be provided basic amenity and physical needs and that if the transferee refused to provide basic amenities and physical needs, thereafter, the Tribunal can declare such deed as void invoking power under Section 23", remarked the court.
The court also contended that, the legislative background and object of conferring power on the Tribunal clearly demands that enquiry as regard to the enactment is similar to the process adopted in an inquisitorial system and therefore the duty vested upon the Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act is to evoke the truth. The court further added that, the Tribunal has to independently enquire into the truth and take measures to protect the well being of senior citizen/parent.
While dismissing the writ petition, the court said that the matter requires reconsideration by the Maintenance Tribunal and was remitted back by setting aside the impugned order by the Tribunal.
Click Here To Download Judgment
[Read Judgment]