1

Reserved on : 13.06.2025
Pronounced on : 09.09.2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021 (GM – RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI SUNIL H.BOHRA

S/O SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION
OFF K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

2. SRI HEMANTH H.BOHRA

S/O SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION
OFF K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

3. SRI INDER H.BOHRA

S/O SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION
OFF K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

4. SRI PRAMOD H.BOHRA

 2

S/O SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION
OFF K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

5. SMT. PREETHI
W/O PRAMOD A.BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 2ND CROSS
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION
OFF K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K.S.MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

NORTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.

2. SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA

S/O LATE N.ANRAJ
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

3. SMT. NIRMALA H.BOHRA

W/O SRI HEERALAL A.BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.487, SUNSHINE TEJASSU
FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR, 38TH CROSS
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 070.

... RESPONDENTS
 3

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1;

SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE
NO.MSC/CR/85/2019-20, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AS FAR
AS THE PROPERTY.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 13.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an

order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the 1st respondent/Assistant

Commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’ for short) by which the 1st respondent has granted a token

compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the

petitioners to respondents 1 to 5.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government

 4

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. Vinod Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. Petitioners 1 to 4 are the children of the 2nd respondent.

The 3rd respondent is said to be the step mother of petitioners 1 to

4. 5th petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3 and

wife of 4th petitioner. The mother of petitioners 1 to 4 dies on

30-08-1996. During the lifetime of the mother, it is the averment in

the petition, that father of petitioners 1 to 4 had married the 3rd

respondent/Smt. Nirmala H. Bohra. The father owned schedule

properties. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent are said to have

inherited certain immovable properties as described in the

schedule. The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are in joint

possession and enjoyment of the properties claiming legitimate

share thereon. When things stood thus, the 1st petitioner caused a

legal notice upon the 2nd respondent seeking allotment of his share

in the properties. It was also contended that on the death of the

mother of petitioners 1 to 4, the 2nd respondent got the katha of

 5

item No.1 of the schedule properties to his name. It is averred in

the petition as to how the properties came to the hands of the 2nd

respondent or the entitlement of the petitioners.

3.2. When things stood thus, respondents 2 and 3 alleging

that they have been continuously harassed by the petitioners,

register a complaint against the petitioners before the elders’

helpline. The allegation was that they have been abused by the

petitioners and had unauthorizedly occupied the premises belonging

to respondents 2 and 3. After registration of the complaint to the

helpline, respondents 2 and 3 are said to have been forcibly

dispossessed, due to which they are staying in a rented premise.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint before the

Sampangiramanagara Police Station alleging harassment by the

petitioners. This was closed after summoning the petitioners and

recording a non-cognizable report. The petitioners also instituted a

suit in O.S.No.4336 of 2021 seeking partition and separate

possession of the schedule properties. The trial Court, in the said

suit, passes an order directing the petitioners and respondents 2

 6

and 3 to maintain status quo in respect of item No.1 in the schedule

properties and the same is subsisting even today.

3.3. On the allegation that the respondents are now being

interfered with or harassed, they approached the Assistant

Commissioner under the Act by filing a petition. The Assistant

Commissioner, on hearing the parties, holds that the respondents 2

and 3 are entitled for a token compensation of ₹5,00,000/- and

accordingly directs payment of ₹5,00,000/- to respondents 2 and 3

from out of the rents collected by the petitioners within 15 days

failing which, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is

then, the petitioners have approached this Court in the subject

petition. When the matter appeared before this Court on

27-07-2021, the respondents have undertaken not to precipitate

the matter and the said undertaking is subsisting even today.

4. The learned counsel Sri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah appearing for

the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Tribunal headed

by the Assistant Commissioner has grossly erred in granting an

order, which the law does not permit. According to the learned
 7

counsel under Section 9 of the Act what can be granted is only

maintenance and there is no provision to grant compensation. The

maintenance can only be to the tune of ₹10,000/-. The learned

counsel submits that the order impugned is in violation of the

principles of natural justice, as without giving any notice or

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order is passed. The

order is also illegal for the reason that the properties are joint

family properties and respondents 2 and 3 are also in possession of

the property. The 2nd respondent receives ₹80,000/- per month

from rented shops and it is the 3rd respondent who is the instigator

of the litigation. On all these submissions, the petitioners seek

quashment of the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri M. Vinod Kumar

representing respondents 2 and 3 submits that the order was

passed after following due process of law and within the ambit of

Section 22 of the Act. The order records that respondents 2 and 3

had sustained financial hardship and trauma and there was no

evidence to show that items 1 and 2 of the schedule properties are

joint family properties. The petitioners have not discharged the

 8

obligation to take care of respondents 2 and 3. In all, the learned

counsel would seek to sustain the order.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are

a matter of record. Before embarking upon merits of the matter,

certain provisions of the Act are germane to be noticed. Sections 4,

9, 22 and 23 read as follows:

“4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.—(1)

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 in
case of—

(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his

children not being a minor;

(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative

referred to in clause (g) of Section 2.

(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case

may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of
such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her

parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or
 9

mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may
lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and

having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen
provided he is in possession of the property of such senior
citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:

Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled

to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall
be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they
would inherit his property.
… … …
9. Order for maintenance.—(1) 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 or refusal, order such children or
relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for
the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may
deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the
Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.

(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be

ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by
the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand
rupees per month.
… … …
22. Authorities who may be specified for
implementing the provisions of this Act.—(1) The State
Government may, confer such powers and impose such duties
on a District Magistrate as may be necessary, to ensure that the
provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the District
Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to him, who
shall exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of
the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within
which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer
as may be prescribed.

(2) The State Government shall prescribe a

comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and
property of senior citizens.
 10

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain

circumstances.—(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or
otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the
transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical
needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of
property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the
transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive

maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is
transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced
against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right,
or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for
consideration and without notice of right.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the

rights under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his
behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to
sub-section (1) of Section 5.”

8. The interpretation of the aforesaid provisions need not

detain this Court for long or delve deep in to the matter. The Apex

Court in the case of URMILA DIXIT v. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT1,

has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

12. It is in the above background that we must proceed

to examine the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Act indicates the purpose behind the enactment, as relied
upon by this Court in S. Vanitha v. Commr. [S.
Vanitha v. Commr., (2021) 15 SCC 730] , is:

1
(2025) 2 SCC 787
 11

“Traditional norms and values of the Indian society

laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due
to withering of the joint family system, a large number of
elderly are not being looked after by their family.
Consequently, many older persons, particularly
widowed women are now forced to spend their
twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional
neglect and to lack of physical and financial support.
This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major
social challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection for the older
persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
procedure is both time-consuming as well as
expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple,
inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim
maintenance for parents.”

13. The Preamble of the Act states that it is

intended towards more effective provisions for
maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens,
guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution.

14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a

beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the
rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced
by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must be
interpreted and a construction that advances the
remedies of the Act must be adopted.

15. Before adverting to the provisions of the Act, we

must be cognizant of the larger issue that this case presents i.e.
the care of senior citizens in our society. This Court in Vijaya
Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai [Vijaya Manohar
Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278: 1987 SCC
(Cri) 354] highlighted that it is a social obligation for both sons
and daughters to maintain their parents when they are unable
to do so.

16. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshahv.

Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ)
51], this Court observed that when a case pertaining to
maintenance of parents or wife is being considered, the Court is
 12

bound to advance the cause of social justice of such

marginalised groups, in furtherance of the constitutional vision
enshrined in the Preamble. Recently, this exposition came to be
reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC
324: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749].

17. While issuing a slew of directions for the protection of

senior citizens in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India [Ashwani
Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 636: (2019) 1 SCC
(L&S) 465], this Court had highlighted: (SCC p. 641, paras 3-4)

“3. The rights of elderly persons is one such

emerging situation that was perhaps not fully foreseen by
our Constitution-framers. Therefore, while there is a
reference to the health and strength of workers, men and
women, and the tender age of children in Article 39 of the
Constitution and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in
other cases of undeserved want in Article 41 of the
Constitution, there is no specific reference to the health of
the elderly or to their shelter in times of want and indeed to
their dignity and sustenance due to their age.

4. Eventually, age catches up with everybody

and on occasion, it renders some people completely
helpless and dependent on others, either physically or
mentally or both. Fortunately, our Constitution is
organic and this Court is forward looking. This
combination has resulted in path-breaking
developments in law, particularly in the sphere of
social justice, which has been given tremendous
importance and significance in a variety of decisions
rendered by this Court over the years. The present
petition is one such opportunity presented before this
Court to recognise and enforce the rights of elderly
persons—rights that are recognised by Article 21 of
the Constitution as understood and interpreted by
this Court in a series of decisions over a period of
several decades, and rights that have gained
recognition over the years due to emerging
situations.”

(emphasis supplied)”

(Emphasis supplied)
 13

The Apex Court holds that preamble to the Act indicates that the

Act is intended towards more effective provisions for maintenance

and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and

recognized under the Constitution. It is a beneficial piece of

legislation.

9. Section 8 of the Act is interpreted by the Madras High

Court to hold that the inquiry is through a summary procedure. The

Madras High Court in the case of K.SURESH KUMAR v.

V.KATHIRVEL2, holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

(D) Summary Procedure for Speedy Relief:

54. While Section 23 of the Act provides a legal remedy

for senior citizens to reclaim their property transferred under
coercion, undue influence, or fraud, Section 8 plays a crucial
role in ensuring that such relief is granted in an
expeditious manner.

55. Section 8 of the Act mandates that the

Maintenance Tribunal shall adopt a summary procedure
while conducting inquiries. This provision ensures that
senior citizens do not have to go through lengthy
litigation to secure their rights, thereby making the
remedies under the Act more accessible and effective.

56. The key features of Section 8 include:

2
W.A.No.3754 of 2024 decided on 08-04-2025
 14

(1) Expedited Proceedings – The Tribunal is

empowered to conduct an inquiry in a summary
manner, meaning that cases are resolved without
unnecessary procedural delays.

(2) Quasi-Judicial Powers – The Tribunal possesses the

powers of a Civil Court for summoning evidence,
enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and compelling the
production of documents.

(3) No Full Adjudication of Title Required – Senior

citizens seeking eviction of abusive children/legal
heirs or reclaiming transferred property need only
demonstrate some right, title, or interest in the
property, rather than proving absolute ownership.

57. The summary nature of proceedings under

Section 8 aligns with the spirit of the Act, which is to
provide swift and effective justice to senior citizens
facing neglect, harassment, or financial exploitation.

58. Additionally, Maintenance Tribunals, while

adjudicating claims under Section 23, must take into
consideration the need for prompt intervention. They have the
discretion to call for relevant documents, including encumbrance
certificates, to assess property claims. However, requiring a full
title adjudication would go against the very objective of the Act,
which is designed to provide immediate relief to senior citizens.

59. Thus, Section 8 complements Section 23 by ensuring

that the rights conferred under the Act are enforced without
procedural hurdles.”
(Emphasis supplied)

A Division Bench of the High Court of Madras holds that the

summary nature of proceedings under Section 8 aligns with the

spirit of the Act, which is to provide swift and effective justice to the

senior citizens facing neglect, harassment and financial exploitation.

 15

10. Certain Rules have been framed by the State Government

invoking the provisions of the Act. Rules 6 and 9 of the Karnataka

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules,

2009 are germane to be noticed. They read as follows:

“…. …. ….

6. Procedure in case of non-appearance by the

respondent: - In case, despite service of notice, the
respondent fails to show cause in response to a notice,
the Tribunal shall proceed ex parte, by taking evidence of
the applicant and making such other inquiry as it deems
fit, and shall pass an order disposing of the application.

… … …

9. Procedure to be followed by the maintenance

Tribunal:- (1) Every order passed on any application shall
be communicated within 7 days to the applicant and the
respondent(s) either in person or by registered post free
of cost.

(2) Where the children or relative is residing out of

India, the summons shall be served by the Tribunal
through such authority, as the Central Government may
by notification, specify in this behalf.

(3) All evidence to such proceedings shall be taken

in the presence of the children or relative against whom
an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be
made and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for
summons cases:

Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the

children or relative against whom an order for payment of
maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding
 16

service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Tribunal may

proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte.

(4) Language of the Tribunal shall be either in

Kannada or in English.”

Rule 6 deals with procedure in case of non-appearance by the

respondents. In a case, despite of service of notice, the respondent

fails to show cause in response to the notice, the Tribunal is

empowered to proceed ex parte, by taking evidence of the applicant

and making such other inquiry as it deems fit. Rule 9 depicts

procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. Rule 9 of the Rules is in

pari materia with Section 6(4) of the Act. It provides that if the

Tribunal is satisfied that the children or relatives against whom an

order for payment of maintenance is proposed, willfully avoid

service, the Tribunal may proceed to pass orders ex parte. The said

provisions, as obtaining in Punjab and Haryana Rules, which are

identical to the Karnataka Rules, are interpreted by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana in the case of HARISH KUMAR v. STATE

OF HARYANA3, as follows:

“…. …. ….

3
2020 SCC OnLine P & H 2137
 17

8. The first issue which arises as to whether the petitioner

is entitled for setting aside the ex parte order dated 07.12.2018.
A perusal of the order dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure P-3)
would go on to show that the Tribunal had noted that the
present petitioner had appeared before Sub-Divisional
Officer, Ambala Cantt. and, thereafter had not bothered
to put in appearance when the proceedings were
transferred to the Tribunal at Ambala City and thus, was
well aware of the proceedings. The case of the respondent
No. 3 is also to the same extent in the written statement filed
that the action of the petitioner was deliberate. The legal notice
was sent thereafter on 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) and only
then an appeal was came to be filed on 13.02.2019.

9. No replication has been filed as such to the stand

taken by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was not
appearing before the Tribunal at an earlier point of time
at Ambala Cantt.; neither it has been mentioned as to
how he was not aware of the matter being transferred to
the Tribunal at Ambala City or there was any hitch or
disability the petitioner suffered and that he was not
aware of the proceedings pending at Ambala Cantt. In
spite of being aware of the proceedings pending, the
petitioner chose to avoid appearance and thus is
prolonging the agony of respondent No. 3.

10. In such circumstances, once there is no

sufficient case made out for not appearing before the
Tribunal to defend the proceedings as such, the orders
passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of
the Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances.
The factum of close relationship being a nephew has already
been noticed and the fact that both the shop and house are in
occupation of the petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)

On a blend of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and as

interpreted by the Apex Court and the High Courts of Madras and

Punjab and Haryana, the order impugned requires to be considered.

 18

11. The order impugned reads as follows:

“…. …. ….

After service of notice the Respondents not

appeared before this authority and not filed objections. I
have carefully examined the contents of petition and documents
produced by petitioners.

The history of this case reveals that, the schedule

property is the self-acquired property of petitioners who are
husband and wife and Senior Citizens. Respondent No.1 to 4 are
sons and Respondent No.5 is the daughter-in-law of Petitioners.
The contents of petition and documents reveals that Petitioners
are absolute owners of Petition Schedule Property. The
allegations go to show that Respondents forcibly taken
possession of Petition Schedule Premises and collecting the
rents illegally and not passing the same to the Petitioners. The
Petitioners have no other sources of income to maintain
themselves. The Respondents neglected the Petitioners though
they are collecting rents from the Petition Schedule Premises.
The support of their contentions the Petitioners produced copies
of Lease Deed dated 01-05-2017 executed by Petitioners
themselves in favour of two tenants in respect of Petition
Schedule Properties. Under the said Lease Deed the said
Lessees agreed to pay monthly rent of ₹55,000/- from 01-06-
2017. The medical records goes to show that Petitioners are
suffering from different ailments. The further documents goes to
show that the Petitioners approached Elders Helpline, Sampangi
Ramanagar Police Station. The Petitioners also produced the
Title Deeds which prima facie discloses their title to the Petition
Schedule Premises. The allegations made by Petitioners not at
all denied by the Respondents. Hence, there is prima facie case
in favour of Petitioners. However, there is no document to
award compensation of ₹50,00,000/- as claimed by the
Petitioners. However, Petitioners are entitled for a token
compensation of ₹5,00,000/- from Respondents jointly
and severally and also for other reliefs. With these
observations I proceed to pass the following order.

The Petition of the Petitioner is hereby allowed.

 19

By exercising the power conferred under Section

23(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act 2007, this Tribunal ordered that the
Respondents shall pay ₹5,00,000/- towards amounts
collected from the Tenants/Lessees to the Petitioners
within 15 days from the date of this order failing which
same shall be recovered as that of land revenue. The
Respondent No.1 to 5 liable to pay this amount jointly
and severally. The concerned Tahsildar is directed to
recover the same as per procedure.

The Petitioners is entitled for vacant possession of

schedule property which shall be handed over by Respondent
No.1 to 5 within 15 days from the date of passing of this order.

Further directed to take steps to restore, possession of

the schedule property to the Petitioners and if necessary by
taking the help of jurisdictional police.

The Respondents are hereby directed to deliver and hand

over all the original title documents pertaining to the property of
the Petitioners.

Further directed the respondents to restore the vacant

possession of schedule property to the Petitioners.

Further Respondents shall not interfere with Petitioners

from collecting rents/monthly lease amount from the lessees as
per Lease Agreement dated 01-05-2017 from Sri Prahlad
Talukdar and Sri Shakthi Krishnan who are lessees.

Further, Respondents shall not interfere from day to-day

affairs of Petitioners’ life and Petition Schedule Property.

Further, Respondents are hereby permanently restrained

from interfering with the petitioners peaceful and lawful
possession of Petition Schedule Property.

The Tahsildar is hereby directed to take steps to

implement the order in the above petition.”
(Emphasis added)
 20

The order is undoubtedly ex parte, as the order begins that after

service of notice the respondents did not appear before the

Authority and have not filed objections. The petitioners have

contended that there was no notice even issued to them. The

petitioners are staying in the same premises. It cannot be said that

the petitioners could not be notified. The order does not indicate as

to the steps taken towards service. Whether the petitioners were

served at all with the notice from the Tribunal is not forthcoming.

Therefore, the order admittedly is ex parte, where narration in the

order is only with regard to the allegations of respondents 2 and 3.

This is the first limb of illegality in the order. The petition is allowed

by directing the petitioners to pay ₹5,00,000/- to respondents 2

and 3 towards amounts collected from the tenants within 15 days.

It is ununderstandable under what provision the Tribunal grants

₹5,00,000/- as maintenance. The power to grant maintenance is

under Section 9 of the Act quoted supra and Rule 16 of the 2009

Karnataka Rules. These provisions would hold that maximum that

can be paid is ₹10,000/- per month. This is interpreted by the

 21

Allahabad High Court in the case of ONKAR NATH GAUR v.

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE4, holding as under:

“…. …. ….

69. The word ‘maintenance’ as defined in Section 2

(b) of the Act of 2007 clearly states and takes within its
ambit the power to issue a maintenance order which
takes within its fold inter alia provisions for food,
clothing, residence and medical attendance and
treatment. This assumes significance for the reason that
being a social welfare legislation, the Act recognizes that
the need of senior citizens/parents relating to food,
clothing, residence and medical attendance or treatment
which cannot be a one-time measure rather it may be a
re-occurring or a variable need. Hence, the legislature
has consciously used the word ‘provision’. It is also to be
kept in mind that the provision which is to be made for
food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and
treatment, together as per the current prescribed limit is
not to exceed Rs. 10,000/- a month and can be varied at
any stage, without breaching the ceiling of ten thousand
rupees.

70. Here, it will be relevant to notice that the word

‘maintenance’ is not defined in Chapter IX of Cr. P.C., relatable
to Section 125 Cr. P.C. or in Chapter X in terms of Section 144
of BNSS of 2023. However, the fact remains that in terms of the
aforesaid provisions it is only monetary sum that can be to be
awarded by the Magistrate and it does not refer to provide or
make provision for grant of any non-monetary needs of the
person. This indicates that even though under the general law
which is applicable to inter alia a parent and not necessarily
being a senior citizen but such parent can get a higher
maintenance under the Cr. P.C. or BNSS than that can be
awarded under the Act of 2007 as in the Act of 2007, the
maintenance order cannot exceed Rs. 10,000/- per month (as
per current limit) which is inclusive of all types of maintenance,
both monetary and non-monetary.

4
2025 SCC OnLine All 3241
 22

71. Section 9 (i), empowers the Tribunal to pass a

maintenance order after holding an inquiry for
determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded
and this amount/monthly allowance is determined after
taking note of the specific need and circumstances of
such senior citizen/parent. This is primarily a need-based
remedy for a senior citizen/parent, which in a robust
manner is granted, considering their need for food,
clothing, residence and medical attendance and
treatment, as the case may be, but not exceeding Rs.
10,000/- a month.”
(Emphasis supplied)

The Allahabad High Court holds that the purport of maintenance is

a re-occurring or variable need and maintenance order has to be

capped on maximum amount of ₹10,000/- per month in terms of

sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. The Bombay High Court

again considers Section 9 of the Act in a judgment reported in the

case of NISHA NITIN KOPPIKAR v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA5, setting aside the order of maintenance of

₹26,000/- per month and restricting it to ₹10,000/- per month. The

Bombay High Court holds as follows:

“…. ….. ….

17. Thus, under sub-section (1) of Section 9, the

Maintenance Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to
direct the ‘children’ or relatives, who neglect or refuse to
maintain ‘a senior citizen’, to pay monthly allowance as
directed by the Tribunal. Subsection (2) of Section 9

5
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 768
 23

imposes a cap on the maximum amount of payment of

such maintenance allowance at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
In my view, sub-section (1) of Section 9 uses the word “a
senior citizen”. Thus, the Order that can be passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal would be qua ‘a senior citizen’.
Thus, the Maintenance Tribunal is empowered to pass
separate order qua each of the senior citizens in respect
of the ‘children’ or ‘relatives’. Each of the senior citizen
can independently file proceedings for payment of
maintenance under Section 9 against same children or
relatives. Therefore, the maximum cap of Rs. 10,000/-
under sub-section (2) of Section 9 would apply to each of
the senior citizen and not qua all senior citizens in the
family. Similarly, the same cannot apply to each child or
relative. This is because under Section 9, an Order
directing maintenance is to be made in respect of ‘a
senior citizen’. A particular senior citizen may have single
or multiple children or relatives. If the intention of the
Act was to apply cap of Rs. 10,000/-qua each child or
relative, the same would result in incongruous situation,
where one senior citizen having one child will get
maximum maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- whereas another
senior citizen having multiple children would be in a
position to draw higher amount of maintenance. The
intention of the Act is not to create disparity amongst
senior citizens, but to create a uniformity amongst them,
by ensuring that each senior citizen can receive
maximum maintenance allowance not exceeding Rs.
10,000/-.
…. ….. ….

20. I therefore hold that under sub-section (2) of Section

9, the Maintenance Tribunal can order children or relatives to
pay maximum maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- qua each
senior citizen. In the present case, there are two senior citizens
and therefore the maximum amount that can be ordered by the
Maintenance Tribunal could not have exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. To
this limited extent, the Order of the Tribunal directing payment
of maintenance allowance of Rs. 26,000/- by all three children
to two senior citizens is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be
modified.”
(Emphasis supplied)
 24

12. The order of the Tribunal refers to grant of compensation

or payment of compensation of ₹5,00,000/-. The word

‘compensation’ is not found either in the Act or in the Rules. What is

found is only grant of maintenance to the aged parents relating to

food, clothing, residence and medical attendance. This cannot

become a onetime measure. It is re-occurring or variable need as

held by the Allahabad High Court. Therefore, maintenance could

have been granted, but not compensation of ₹5,00,000/- lumpsum.

The order thus suffers from twin illegalities – one it is an ex parte

order and the other the compensation of ₹5,00,000/- is contrary to

the Act or the Rules. The interpretation of the Act by different High

Courts qua the issue in the lis concerning grant of compensation in

place of maintenance, would undoubtedly lead to the obliteration of

the order impugned and the matter being remitted back to the

Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration, to pass necessary

orders, after affording opportunity of hearing the parties to the

subject lis.

13. Before I say omega, to the subject order, certain

observations with regard to the enactment qua Section 9

 25

would not be inapt. The Act was promulgated in the year 2007

and it has undergone several amendments up to August 2023. The

Act came into force on 29-12-2007. The objects and reasons for

bringing in the enactment are germane to be noticed. They read as

follows:

“Statement of Objects and Reasons. - Traditional

norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing
care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint
family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked
after by their family. Consequently, many older persons,
particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their
twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect
and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly
reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge
and there is a need to give more attention to the care and
protection for the older persons. Though the parents can
claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as
expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple,
inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance
for parents.

2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons

who inherit the property of children or their aged relatives to
maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make
provisions for setting up oldage homes for providing
maintenance to the indigent older persons.

The Bill further proposes to provide better medical

facilities to the senior citizens and provisions for protection of
their life and property.

3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for—

(a) appropriate mechanism to be set up to

provide need-based maintenance to the
parents and senior citizens;
 26

(b) providing better medical facilities to senior

citizens;

(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable

mechanism for protection of life and property
of older persons;

(d) setting up of oldage homes in every district.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Act was brought into force for the reason that traditional norms

and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the

elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a

large number of elderly were not being looked after by their family.

Therefore, the Act brought in appropriate mechanism to be set up

to provide need based maintenance to the parents and senior

citizens for providing better medical facilities to senior citizens,

institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and

property of older persons. The enactment is no sudden

manifestation, it is the legislative echo of Article 41 of the

Constitution of India, which enjoins the State with compass

of its economic strength to extend public assistance in cases

 27

of unemployment, sickness, disablement and most crucially,

in the fragile twilight of old age. Article 41 reads as follows:

“41. Right to work, to education and to public

assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits
of its economic capacity and development, make effective
provision for securing the right to work, to education and to
public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness
and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.”

Article 41 deals with right to work, to education and to public

assistance in certain cases. It mandates that the State should make

effective provision, for securing among others cases of old age and

disablement. The statement of objects and reasons which

forms the very heart of the statute, is traceable to the

Directive Principles of State Policy, it speaks with

unmistakable poignancy. It laments the withering of the

joint family system and draws attention to the plight of

countless elderly citizens who are abandoned, to face not

only penury, but also the aching void of neglect. The law,

thus, arose as a protective canopy to those citizens.

14. As observed, the Act has come into force on 29-12-2007.

The provisions have undergone several amendments. It was

 28

amended by, Act 34 of 2019. But, one provision has remained the

same. A bill comes to be introduced in Bill No.374 of 2019, called

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

(Amendment) Bill 2019. The bill, in particular, envisaged

substitution of Section 9. The substitution thought of, was as

follows:

“9. For section 9 of the principal Act, the following section

shall be substituted, namely:-

"9. (1) The Tribunal may, on being satisfied of

the neglect or refusal on part of the children or the
relative, as the case may be, to maintain a parent or
senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself to
lead a life of dignity, pass an order for maintenance
directing such children or relative to provide such
monthly allowance, other resources and care for the
maintenance of the parent or senior citizen, as it
may, from time to time, determine.

(2) While determining the maintenance, the

Tribunal may take into consideration the standard of
living of the parent or senior citizen and the earnings
of such parent or senior citizen and of the children or
relative.

(3) The order for maintenance shall be

enforceable from the date of such order or, if so
ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the
application.

(4) A copy of the order for maintenance shall

be-
 29

(i) made available free of cost to the

parent or senior citizen, as the case
may be;

(ii) posted on the Notice Board of the

Tribunal;

(iii) made available online on the website of

the concerned Department of the State:
and

(iv) provided to the Maintenance Officer.

(5) Where an order for maintenance is made

against more than one person, the death of one of
them shall not affect the liability of the others to
continue providing the maintenance."

It is noteworthy that the 2019 amendment Bill sought to efface the

aforesaid ceiling of ₹10,000/-, empowering Tribunals to determine

maintenance in proportion to the dignity and the place of the senior

citizen. Alas, the legislative seed never sprouted and the cap

remains frozen in time. Section 9 even today reads as follows:

“9. Order for maintenance.—(1) 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 or refusal, order such children or
relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for
the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may
deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the
Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.

(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be

ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by
 30

the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand

rupees per month.”

Sub-section (2) of Section 9 mandates maximum maintenance

allowance which may be ordered by the Tribunal shall be as may be

prescribed by the State Government, which shall not exceed

₹10,000/- per month. Therefore, the central enactment caps it at

₹10,000/-. No State can frame Rules, which could travel beyond

sub-section (2) of Section 9 on grant of maintenance beyond

₹10,000/-. Therefore, the State of Karnataka or every other State

has formulated Rules which cap it at ₹10,000/-; ostensibly so, as

the State Rules cannot be contrary to the Act, under which the

Rules are framed. Therefore, it remained at ₹10,000/- maintenance

today.

15. The Act came into force in the year 2007. 18 years have

passed by. The avowed objective of the Act was primarily three-fold

– (i) need based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens, (ii)

to provide better medical facilities and (iii) suitable mechanism for

protection. Therefore, the enactment was to be need based.

Securing the need for a senior citizen cannot be seen to remain the
 31

same as it was in 2007. Cost of living inflation has increased

exponentially. With the inflation index today, what a senior citizen

would have got in 2007 is reduced by 10% today even to the

medical facilities. Therefore, the amount of ₹10,000/-, that is now

subsisting, cannot be enough to achieve the real intent of the

enactment. I say so on empirical validity.

16. The Ministry of Finance, in the Department of Revenue,

has notified from time to time, the cost inflation index. The graph of

cost inflation index as found in the website of the Ministry of

Finance, Government of India, depicts the growth in the following

manner:
 32

Notification No. 44/2017/F.No.370142/11/2017-TPL6

The numbers tell a tale, more eloquent, than words. In the

year 2007-08 the cost inflation index stood at 129; today, it

sores at 363. Thus, what one could procure for ₹100/- in

2007, requires nearly a ₹1000/- in 2025. Prices of food,

shelter and medicine have climbed steeply; only the

statutory cap of ₹10,000/- has remained petrified,

untouched, notwithstanding the march of time.

17. Can maintenance so meagre, achieve the objects of

the Act? Can a citizen secure dignity, subsistence and

medical aid within the confines of Section 9? requires

pondering, so to say otherwise would be to reduce the

existence of those senior citizens “as a mere animal

existence”. This Court, cannot legislate, it cannot rewrite

Section 9, yet it bears the responsibility to sensitize the

Government of India, that a provision which stood

6
Income Tax Department, Cost inflation index in India from financial
years 2002 to 2026 Statista, https://www-statista-com/statistics/1360962/india-
cost-inflation-index/
 33

meaningful in 2007, now mocks its own benevolence in

2025.

18. Maintenance cannot remain a mirage shimmering in

the desert of inflation, nor an oasis that vanishes on

approach. Relief that is illusory is no relief at all. It is, but a

rope of sand, incapable of sustaining those for whom it is

meant. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to recommend,

with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise

the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the

Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a

living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation’s wealth

is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare

of the child and the care of the elderly-old, albeit, inter alia.

19. Diving back to the facts of the case, in the light of

spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do

complete justice between the parties, I am of the considered

opinion that, maintenance at ₹30,000/- to each senior citizen,

should be appropriate to be granted by the Tribunal, during the

 34

subsistence of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner

now remitted. While granting such maintenance, the Assistant

Commissioner should look into the income of the senior citizen in

the case at hand and direct the senior citizen to file an affidavit of

the property standing in their name if any, and income derived from

the said property, if any and then, assess continuance of

maintenance, as is granted in the subject petition.

20. In sum, this order does not merely adjudicate the dispute.

The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a

clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be

abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match

reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by

want, but illuminated by care.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

 35

(ii) Order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the 1st respondent

in Case No.MSC/CR/85/2019-20 stands quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 1st

respondent for consideration afresh, bearing in mind

the observations made in the course of the order and

pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioners shall pay ₹10,000/- per month each to

respondents 2 and 3 as maintenance from 16-04-2021,

till the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

(v) The order of maintenance at ₹10,000/- stands

enhanced to ₹30,000/-, to each of the petitioners, from

today, till the matter is decided by the 1st

respondent/Assistant Commissioner. On failure of the

petitioners to pay the amounts specified in clauses (iv)

and (v), the 1st respondent is at liberty to pass

necessary orders in accordance with law, in terms of

the Act.
 36

(vi) In the event the amount of ₹5,00,000/- is already paid

by the petitioners to respondents 2 and 3 as ordered by

the 1st respondent, the same shall be given set off

towards arrears to be paid at ₹10,000/- each per month

from the date of the order dated 16-04-2021.

(vii) The Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this order

to the Additional Solicitor General of India to place it

before the Ministry of Finance to consider the

recommendation so made in the course of the order.

Consequently, pending I.As also stand disposed.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

Bkp
CT:SS