Maintenance Tribunal's Power Under Senior Citizens Act Not Limited To Ordering Monthly Allowance : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the power of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act is not circumscribed to mere ordering of monthly allowance for the maintenance of senior citizens where their children/relatives refuse to maintain them but to ensure maintenance from their own earnings to lead a dignified life.

Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction and powers to issue directions to the children or relative not to deprive the senior citizen of their earnings so that they can maintain themself.

"When the Senior Citizen or parent who has earnings makes an application to the Maintenance Tribunal contending that her right to earning is obstructed by the son who has statutory obligation to maintain the parent, the Maintenance Tribunal has to ensure that the Senior Citizen or parent is able to maintain herself from her earnings. The object of the Act is not only to provide financial support, but also to prevent financial exploitation of the senior citizen and parent by relative or children."

The Court noted that when a senior citizen is prevented from taking such earnings or residing in the house, she is deprived of her maintenance. while emphasizing that the Senior Citizens Act is intended to ensure that senior citizens are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. 

The petitioner was a senior citizen whose husband had executed a will, creating life interest in favour of her in respect of some properties. As per the will, during the lifetime of the petitioner, she could enjoy the scheduled properties with absolute freedom including the right to collect and take all income and to reside in the house.

Five years after her husband passed away, the petitioner moved the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act against her son and daughter in law, alleging that they were not maintaining her and were not permitting her to stay in the house peacefully or to enjoy or collect usufructs from the property covered by the will.

The Maintenance Tribunal passed an order directing the respondents not to obstruct the petitioner from taking usufructs from the property, to create a peaceful living atmosphere for her in the house, and not to cause any harm to her.

Six months later, the petitioner approached the Tribunal again for enforcement of its order contending that the respondents continued to harass her and obstruct her from entering the house and taking usufruct. Alleging that the Maintenance Tribunal did not take steps to enforce its order and that the District Magistrate did not take steps under the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, the petitioner moved the HIgh Court.  

Considering that the contesting parties were the mother and her son, the High Court referred the matter for mediation but to no avail. Therefore, it directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioner in the residence. 

However, the daughter-in-law filed a counter affidavit contending that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed without jurisdiction and that the Maintenance Tribunal cannot pass an order of such nature under the Senior Citizens Act. She also denied all allegations of harassment levelled by the petitioner. Regardless, the report of the District Social Justice Officer who visited their residence disclosed that the petitioner's life appeared to be 'pathetic'.

Advocate K.M. Varghese appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is legally valid and therefore, liable to be enforced. He added that although the petitioner has approached other forums for her rights, the Senior Citizens Act has overriding effect over other enactments and clarified that there are no conflicting orders.

The Counsel further pointed out that under Rule 19 of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, the District Magistrate has wide powers to ensure the timely execution of orders of the Maintenance Tribunal. Accordingly, he sought a directive to the Tribunal and the Magistrate to enforce the order.

Advocate Bea Mary Benny appearing for the respondents contended that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only with regard to maintenance and that it has no jurisdiction to pass an order concerning other civil rights of the parties. Government Pleader C.N. Prabhakaran also appeared in the matter. 

The Court noted that the respondents cannot just walk away from their moral and statutory obligation to maintain the petitioner or be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. It was also observed that the fact that the petitioner had approached other forums and secured orders for taking yield from the property and for a peaceful stay at the residence will not restrain her from seeking enforcement of the impugned order.

As such, the District Magistrate under Section 22 and Rule 19 was directed to secure compliance of the said order either through the Maintenance Tribunal or by himself within three months.

The Judge added that although all attempts for mediation failed, the District Magistrate shall make an attempt to see if it can be amicably settled between the parties so that they all live in comfort and with love before taking steps to enforce the order.

Case Title: Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158

Click Here To Read/Download The Order