'Twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care,' HC for revising ceiling of maintenance for elders [Read Order]

NEW DELHI: The Karnataka High Court has asked the Union government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to revise the ceiling of maintenance to bring it in line with the cost of living index.

Lamenting neglect of the elders, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality so that "the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care".

The court made the observations while dealing with a petition filed by four sons and a daughter-in-law of a Bengaluru-based senior citizen couple.

The court noted Section 9 of the 2007 Act mandated maximum maintenance allowance, which may be ordered by the tribunal, not exceeding Rs 10,000 per month.

The court said while the Act came into force in 2007, even after several amendments, maintenance has remained at Rs 10,000.

Going through the cost inflation index as released by the Ministry of Finance, the court said the cost of inflation was 129 in 2007-08 and stood at 363 today.  

“Thus, what one could procure for Rs 100 in 2007 requires nearly Rs 1,000 in 2025. Prices of food, shelter and medicine have climbed steeply; only the statutory cap of Rs 10,000 has remained petrified, untouched, notwithstanding the march of time,” it said.

The court asked if the maintenance so meagre can achieve objectives of the Act.

"Can a citizen secure dignity, subsistence and medical aid within confines of Section 9 requires pondering, so to say otherwise would be to reduce the existence of those senior citizens “as mere animal existence,” the bench said.

The bench also said, this court cannot legislate, it cannot rewrite Section 9, yet it bears the responsibility to sensitise the government of India, that a provision which stood meaningful in 2007, now mocks its own benevolence in 2025.

In the case at hand, petitioners — Sunil, Hemanth, Pramod and Inder, and his wife Preethi, all residents of Bengaluru — challenged the April 16, 2021, order passed by the assistant commissioner, North Division, directing payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Heeralal Bohra & Nirmala Bohra, stepmother of the petitioners.

They argued that there is no scope for awarding compensation and that their father receives Rs 80,000 as rent from the shops he had leased.

The court acceded that the word “compensation” is not found either in the Act or in the rules.

The bench held, “The order thus suffers from twin illegalities – one it is an ex parte order and the other the compensation of Rs 5,00,000 is contrary to the Act or rules."

The court opined, 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 obliteration of the order impugned and the matter being remitted back to the assistant commissioner for fresh consideration, to pass necessary orders, after affording opportunity of hearing the parties to the subject lis.

The bench, however, said that the elderly couple is entitled to a maintenance of Rs 10,000 each from April 16, 2021 until now and Rs 30,000 per month from the date of judgment until the assistant commissioner issues fresh order. 

[Read Order]

Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.