Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has ruled that merely attaining the status of a 'senior citizen' does not automatically entitle a person to receive maintenance from their children unless they demonstrate an inability to maintain themselves through their own earnings or property. A single-judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra made this observation while allowing a writ petition filed by a son challenging an order directing him to pay maintenance to his father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the 2007 Act’). The Court held that an order of maintenance requires a finding that the senior citizen is unable to maintain themselves and that the children have neglected or refused to provide support.

Court’s Key Observation on Maintenance

The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 4 of the 2007 Act and stated: “Simply being a senior citizen does not automatically entitle a person to receive maintenance from his children. The necessary ingredients appear to be as follows: (1) He must be a senior citizen. (2) He must be unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or out of property owned by him.” The Court further elaborated on Section 9 of the Act, stating: “Thus, an order of maintenance can be passed on the finding that the children or the relatives, as the case may be, have neglected or refused to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself. The language used is ‘the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect.’ Therefore, it is imperative that the Tribunal has to be subjectively satisfied about the above aspect before passing any order of maintenance.”

Case Background

The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Kukreja, is the son of the opposite party (his father). The father filed an application under Section 5 of the 2007 Act before the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging that his son had ousted him from the house and was refusing to maintain him despite his age of 69 years. He sought a maintenance amount of ₹5,000 per month. The Maintenance Tribunal, by an order dated 16.2.2024, directed the petitioner to hand over the key of the house gate to his father and pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. The petitioner challenged this order before the Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Rayagada, which upheld the Tribunal's decision. The petitioner then approached the High Court, contending that both authorities had failed to determine whether his father was incapable of maintaining himself.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority had not rendered any finding on whether the father was unable to maintain himself through his earnings or property, as required under Section 4 of the 2007 Act. Additionally, he pointed out that Section 9 of the Act mandates a finding of neglect or refusal to provide maintenance before passing an order, which was absent in this case. The petitioner further contended that Rule 14 of the Odisha Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 ('the 2009 Rules') prescribes a methodology for calculating the maximum maintenance allowance, which had been overlooked.

On the other hand, the father’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had not raised these arguments before the lower authorities. He emphasized that the father, aged 69 years, had no source of income and had been thrown out of his home by the petitioner, leaving him with no alternative but to seek maintenance.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The High Court examined Section 4 of the 2007 Act, which states: “A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5.” It also referred to Section 9, which provides: “If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance.” Interpreting these provisions, the Court observed that the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority had failed to provide any specific finding regarding the father's financial incapacity and the alleged neglect by the son. The Court stressed the necessity of subjective satisfaction by the Tribunal before granting maintenance.

Regarding Rule 14 of the 2009 Rules, the Court noted: “The Rules specifically provide a methodology for quantifying the maximum maintenance allowance that may be directed to be paid under the Act. This aspect has also not been touched at all by either the Maintenance Tribunal or the appellate authority.”

Conclusion and Directions

Finding procedural lapses in the orders passed by the lower authorities, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh consideration. It directed the Tribunal to:

1. Assess whether the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself through earnings or property.

2. Determine if the children had neglected or refused to provide maintenance.

3. Ensure compliance with Rule 14 of the 2009 Rules while fixing the maintenance amount.

The Court further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner as per its interim order should be kept in a fixed deposit until the Tribunal re-adjudicates the matter. Both parties were instructed to appear before the Tribunal on February 24, 2025, for further proceedings.

Cause Title: Ravi Kumar Kukreja v. Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Rayagada & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 25530 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra 

[Read/Download order]