Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 117 (CAL)

Ranajit Gopal Roy v. State of West Bengal

2016-02-02

DIPANKAR DATTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. An order dated September 8, 2015, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Katwa, being the presiding officer of the Maintenance Tribunal, Katwa (hereafter the tribunal), constituted in terms of the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereafter the Act), is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the son of the respondent no. 5 (parent/senior citizen). She had approached the tribunal with a complaint of neglect and ill-treatment by the petitioner and claimed an order for maintenance as well as right to stay at her residence at Subodh Smriti Bypass Road, Katwa (hereafter the residence). The complaint was disposed of by the impugned order by directing as follows: “Whereas on being heard the tribunal is of the view that the petitioner needs immediate maintenance from her sons and her right to stay at her residence immediately at Subodh Smriti Bypass Road, Katwa and considering the financial condition of the O.P. and that of the younger son of the petitioner, passed an order on this very day i.e. 08.09.2015 that Shri Ranjit Gopal Roy, Elder son, O.P will remit Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only per month to the bank account of the petitioner, Shri Biswajit Roy, younger son will remit Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only per month, to the bank account of the petitioner. The stated amount for maintenance must be deposited to the bank account (Bank Name Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Name: Katwa, A/c No. 17352281005558, IFSC: ORBC0101735) of the petitioner on or before 5th of each month starting from 5th October, 2015. Whereas the tribunal further directs the O.P Sri Ranjit Gopal Roy, who has been solely residing in his parent’s property, as claimed by the petitioner, to reinstate her mother Smt. Mina Roy, the petitioner at her residence at Subodh Smriti Bypass Road, Katwa by 15th October, 2015 along with her younger daughter, Smt. Phalguni Roy Sarkar who looks after the petitioner and give free access for peaceful stay at the Ground floor of the said residence and provide basic amenities e.g uninterrupted access to electricity and water etc. As it was learnt that the said residential house has two separate entrances, it is desirable that the petitioner and the O.P. should use separate entrance for their daily use and they don’t infringe upon to other. As it was learnt that the said residential house has two separate entrances, it is desirable that the petitioner and the O.P. should use separate entrance for their daily use and they don’t infringe upon to other. Whereas the tribunal made this order under this Act and shall be executed in the manner as prescribed in the act and subsequent rules laid down for the purpose.” 2. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner’s grievance is limited to that part of the order of the tribunal whereby reinstatement of the respondent no. 5 and her daughter, Smt. Phalguni Roy Sarkar, has been directed together with direction to ensure free access for stay at the ground floor of the residence. According to him, there is no provision in the Act for making such a direction for reinstatement and the tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction. 3. I have heard Mr. Bhattacharya. It has not been considered necessary to call upon the learned advocates appearing for the official respondents and the respondent no. 5 to reply. 4. The Act has been introduced for achieving the laudable object of maintenance and welfare of senior citizens/parents, who are not cared for by their son(s)/daughter(s) despite the latter having sufficient means therefor, as well as for other purposes. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, one has to bear in mind the preamble of the Constitution whereby the people of the nation promised, inter alia, social and economic justice for all. The Act no doubt is a social welfare legislation which is intended to take care of the socio-economic needs of the have-nots. 5. It would be relevant to understand what ‘maintenance’ and ‘welfare’, wherever used in the Act, would connote. The terms are defined as follows: “2 (b). -‘maintenance’ includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment; and 2 (k). - ‘welfare’ means provision for food, health care, recreation centres and other amenities necessary for the senior citizens.” 6. On consideration of the materials that were placed before the tribunal and on perusal of the order impugned in its entirety, it does appear that the parents of the petitioner i.e. the respondent no. 5 and her husband (since deceased), out of love and affection had transferred the residence in the name of the petitioner. On consideration of the materials that were placed before the tribunal and on perusal of the order impugned in its entirety, it does appear that the parents of the petitioner i.e. the respondent no. 5 and her husband (since deceased), out of love and affection had transferred the residence in the name of the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent no.5 had been surviving on a meagre pension of Rs.7200/- per month, out of which Rs.3000/- had to be paid as rent for her accommodation elsewhere and that she was finding it very difficult to maintain herself and her daughter (whose relationship with her husband is estranged). Because of old age, the respondent no.5 required constant care and assistance, which is being provided only by her daughter. It is on appreciation of these facts and circumstances that the tribunal proceeded to make directions as quoted supra. 7. It has been ascertained in course of hearing that the petitioner is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and has the resources to meet both ends i.e. his own requirements as well as the demands of the respondent no. 5. The tribunal judiciously directed that the younger son of the respondent no. 5, who is better off, would be liable to pay Rs. 2000/- and the petitioner Rs. 500/- on account of maintenance. 8. I do not consider that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in making the directions it did while disposing of the complaint of the petitioner, as contended by Mr. Bhattacharya. While it cannot be gainsaid that in view of the provisions of the Act it is the duty of a son to maintain his mother as well as to ensure her welfare by making sufficient provisions to enable her not only survive but to pass her last days peacefully, it cannot at the same time be doubted that the respondent no. 5 would be entitled to lead the rest of her life in the manner she chooses. That is part of her very valuable right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. If she decides to engage an attendant for looking after her, no questions can be raised by the petitioner. However, engaging an attendant would entail expenses, which the petitioner can ill afford to bear. Should the respondent no. That is part of her very valuable right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. If she decides to engage an attendant for looking after her, no questions can be raised by the petitioner. However, engaging an attendant would entail expenses, which the petitioner can ill afford to bear. Should the respondent no. 5, instead of engaging an attendant, desire to be taken care of by her daughter, it is incomprehensible as to how the petitioner could throw a spanner in the works by raising highly technical pleas that there is no provision in the Act for reinstatement of the daughter of the respondent no.5 in the residence. The Act has to be read as a whole and the interpretation thereof in a manner advancing and promoting the cause of senior citizens and parents must be preferred. So interpreted, there is little reason for the petitioner to feel aggrieved. 9. This is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition merits no order and, accordingly, stands dismissed without order for costs. The tribunal shall take steps in accordance with law to have its order implemented, if it has not been implemented in the meanwhile. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be furnished to the applicant at an early date.