The Bombay High Court recently upheld an order of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal (tribunal) mandating the son and daughter-in-law to pay Rs.10,000/-monthly maintenance and hand over a flat to their 88-year-old mother. The division bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice R. N. Laddha, in a writ petition challenging the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal's order, held that "It is clear that the petitioners have no legal right whatsoever in the flat in question to sustain a claim that they can evict the mother and take exclusive advantage of the said flat. The Tribunal has recorded findings which are based on the record and are following the law. We do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal requiring interference of this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India."

Gamanlal Mehta and his wife, Manjulaben Mehta (respondent), bought the flat. After his death, the flat was transferred to the respondent. She filed a complaint before the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal to evict her son and his wife (the petitioners) from the flat. She filed a complaint with the tribunal, requesting that her son and his wife (the petitioners) be evicted from the flat. She also demanded Rs 1.32 crore in interest for a loan she and her late husband allegedly made to the petitioners. The tribunal ordered the petitioners to vacate the flat and pay Rs. 25,000 in monthly maintenance. Hence, the petitioners approached the High Court.

According to the petitioners' lawyer, Pradeep Thorat, the mother is not the sole owner of the flat. Her son is entitled to one-tenth of her share. The flat has been merged with three adjacent flats owned by the petitioners. Furthermore, the tribunal did not follow the summary procedure as required by Sections 5(3), 6 and 8 of the 2007 Act. Also, Rules 7 and 13 of the 2007 Act were not followed.

The Court observed "Respondent no.3 is not the sole owner of the said flat. Petitioner no.1 is entitled to 1/10th share in the said flat. The flat in question is not independent, and the same is merged in flats nos. 601 to 603, owned by the petitioners. There is no separate entrance to this flat. He submitted that the Tribunal. had not followed the summary procedure contemplated under Section 5(3), Section 6 and Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the said Act’). Also, the procedure under Rules 7 and 13 of the Rules was not followed."

Further, the learned counsel also submitted that "the amount of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month granted by respondent no.2 is beyond jurisdiction because the maximum amount of maintenance can be granted under Section 9 is Rs.10,000/- only. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal could not have granted a relief sought by respondent no.3 in her complaint. He draws our attention to the complaint itself to contend that the same was primarily for eviction of the petitioners from the flat and recovery of the alleged loan amount and not for maintenance."

The court stated that this is not a summary case and that no oral evidence is required because it is well established that the respondent-mother owns the flat and the son has never objected to this. Section 8 of the 2007 Act requires that the procedure be followed. The court also noted that the respondent-mother had filed a complaint against the petitioners at the police station.

The division bench further held that "If the petitioners are not maintaining respondent no.3-mother and are creating a nuisance and emotional disturbances to her, the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated" As a result, the court found no perversity in the tribunal's decision to issue the maintenance order.

The court, however, reduced the maintenance amount as it was not in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, stating that "the maintenance amount granted by the Tribunal was Rs.25,000/- per month, which is not in accordance with sub-Section(2) of Section 9. Therefore, based on those described above, we find it difficult to approve the impugned order directing the petitioners to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-mother. Thus, the impugned order stands modified so that the petitioners, instead of Rs.25,000/-, shall pay the respondent-mother a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/"

Case Details:-

Writ Petition (L) No. 25744 of 2022

Hemant Gamanlal Mehta

Vs

State of Maharashtra and Ors.