The Bombay High Court has clarified that every conflict between a senior citizen and his offspring would not attract the jurisdiction of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Whether the factual matrix in a given case brings out the jurisdictional facts necessary for the intervention envisaged in the Act is a question that must necessarily be answered in each case.
The Court explained a well-known principle that when interpreting a beneficial legislation, it must be read purposively and not literally, it must not be read like interpreting fiscal statute. Thus, the sons’ contention that they are themselves unemployed and one is totally dependent on the other for caregiving and upkeep is not relevant for the analysis of the matter in hand.
The Court pointed out that the objective of directing a relative to vacate the premises to enable maintaining the emotional needs and peace expected in normal life would presuppose the family living under one roof, with the need to remove the relative to enable the senior citizen’s peace.
A situation where the parties have been in conflict for long and one desires the other to be removed from a property where they do not reside jointly, or worse, where neither resides (the father alleges that even the sons do not live there) is not a matter that would fall within the ambit and scope of remedial intervention under the Act, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan referred to the jurisdictional fact under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as per which, the senior citizen should be unable to maintain himself from his own earnings and earnings out of the property owned by him.
The Bench observed that the intent of protective coverage under Section 4 is the inability of a senior citizen to maintain himself out of his earnings and out of the property owned by him. The reference to property is not just the property from which eviction has been sought by the senior citizen but also other properties owned by the senior citizen.
Section 4(1) of the Act creates an entitlement in a senior citizen to make an application under Section 5 of the Act. Section 4(2) creates an obligation on the offspring of the senior citizen to maintain the senior citizen parent by providing for the needs to lead a normal life, explained the Bench while observing that these two elements of Section 4 do not operate in a vacuum. Such entitlement and such obligation would apply where the senior citizen makes out a case of inability to maintain himself out of his earnings and earnings from his property.
Briefly, this petition challenged an order by which the Petitioners (“the Sons”) have been directed, in exercise of powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to vacate the premises owned by their father, Respondent No. 1 (“the Father”), which the Sons currently occupy in Liberty Garden in Malad, which is admittedly a slum unit. The Sons are offspring of the Father and his late first wife. Respondent No. 2 is the current wife of the Father.
Appearances:
Advocates S.C. Mangle and Tanmay M. Shembavanekar, for the Petitioners
Advocates Vijayalaxmi Obhan and Pankaj Jadhav, for the Respondents
