Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1815 (KER)

Umayira K. v. K. Assya, W/o. Late Pocker Haji

2025-07-03

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B.SNEHALATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.25900/2021 and 18573/2021. 2. The appellants are the writ petitioners in the afore petitions and they filed them challenging the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, dated 05.08.2021, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to “Act” for short). 3. Admittedly, the impugned order relates to the welfare of the senior citizen - Smt.K.Assya, who is 75 years in age; and the appellants, along with one of their siblings, have been directed to pay her Rs.10,000/- per month each as monthly maintenance. 4. The appellants challenge the order on the ground that even though they have been mulcted with the liability as afore, the Tribunal has left the 4 th sibling, namely Sri.Sajeer, from any such responsibility and further that, as per Section 9 of the ‘Act’, the maximum maintenance that can be favoured to the senior citizen, from all her children, is Rs.10,000/-. 5. We notice that the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the Writ Petitions, finding Smt.K.Assya to be requiring more than Rs.30,000/- per month as expenses; and thus holding that, since the petitioners and other siblings are refusing to take care of her, the Maintenance Tribunal has acted within its powers. 6. Sri.P.U.Shailajan – learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.191/2025 and Sri.Parthasarathy – learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.197/2025, reiterated that the order of the Maintenance Tribunal is wrong because it has left out one of the siblings; and further that no amount more than Rs.10,000/- could have been ordered in total in favour of the senior citizen. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as afore on 02.06.2025, we directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain a report from the jurisdictional Social Justice Officer, as to the present condition of the senior citizen, her requirements, desires and other relevant inputs. 8. The learned Government Pleader has now filed a Memo, producing the Report, wherein, after enumerating the assets of the appellants, it is recorded that the senior citizen requires a full-time Home Nurse, who will have to be paid at least Rs.25,000/-; but that she has been denied this now because her children, including the appellants, are refusing to honour any amount. 9. 9. We do not propose to deal with the Report qua the appellants or their assets and income; but, suffice to say that they are tolerably well off. In contradistinction, the senior citizen appears to be bedridden, requiring full-time assistance of a Home Nurse, but has been now denied this on account of lack of resources. 10. The Social Justice Officer has reported that the appointment of a full-time Home Nurse would require a minimum of Rs.25,000/- per month; and viewed from that perspective, the amount now ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal, in its order sought to be assailed, is a mere Rs.5,000/- more. The senior citizen indubitably would require several other necessities, including medicine, food, nutrition etc.; and the cost for such would be much in excess of what has been now ordered to be paid by the appellants and their other siblings. 11. That said, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the senior citizen is now living with her son, who has not been specifically mulcted with liability by the Maintenance Tribunal. However, this is evidently because the mother is staying with him and is being looked after by him and his family. We cannot find error in this. 12. Coming to Section 9 of the ‘Act’, the Maintenance Tribunal obtains jurisdiction to mulct children or relatives, as the case may be, to pay maintenance to a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself/herself, if they refuse to do so. It is perspicuous that Section 9(2) thereof provides that the maximum maintenance amount that can be ordered by the Tribunal shall not exceed Rs.10,000/- per month; but this does not carry or employ a covenant or restriction that such a figure is the sole entitled to the senior citizen. When Section 9(1) of the Act commences saying that children or relatives are liable to maintain the senior citizen under certain specified conditions, it can only be construed to mean that each of them are liable to pay, though subject to the maximum as fixed in Section 9(2). This is how the learned Judge has understood the provision and we affirm it. In the afore circumstances, these Appeals are dismissed.