Senior citizens can't be forced to live with abusive children: HC

Time of India

5 hours ago

Nagpur: In a ruling emphasising the dignity and rights of elderly parents, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently held that senior citizens cannot be compelled to stay with their "abusive" children for financial maintenance under the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007.
The HC bench of Justice RM Joshi underlined that forcing elderly parents to live with their children to avail support is neither mandated by the Act nor aligned with its objectives. "If this view is accepted, then the same would lead to laying down a condition precedent for any senior citizen to stay with children in order to seek maintenance, which has not been done by legislature," the judge observed.
Justice Joshi dismissed a writ petition filed by Vijay Ugale from Risod in Washim district, who challenged an order requiring him to pay Rs10,000 per month to his 77-year-old adoptive mother, Kesarabai.
The maintenance was initially granted by the sub-divisional officer (SDO) and later affirmed by the collector. The court upheld the authorities' decisions, stating there was no perversity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
"There could be situations in which senior citizens are physically or emotionally abused by children and in those circumstances, they cannot be compelled to share household with abusive children," Justice Joshi said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Ductless Air Conditioners Are Selling Like Crazy [See Why]
Keep Cool
Click Here
Undo
Kesarabai approached the maintenance tribunal, alleging neglect and lack of financial support from her adoptive son. She claimed she was forced out of her home nearly six years ago and that her gold ornaments were taken away. Since then, she has been living with her widowed daughter and sustains herself through daily wage labour. She told the authorities that she had no regular income or support.
The tribunal initially directed multiple respondents to pay Rs2,000 monthly maintenance, but the collector revised this order, holding only Vijay Ugale responsible and enhancing the amount to Rs10,000.
Challenging this, Ugale argued that though adopted, he never lived with Kesarabai and was always raised by his biological parents. He also claimed that she earlier owned agricultural land and could support herself.
The HC, however, rejected both contentions. "There is not only legal but also moral duty of any son to maintain elderly parents," Justice Joshi said. "In absence of any concrete evidence with regard to earnings of senior citizens, this court finds no substance in the said contention.
There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is the adopted son of Kesarabai. Once the petitioner has been given in adoption, he becomes practically just like a biological child, and he would carry all obligations of the biological son of the adoptive mother.
"
Addressing the petitioner's contention that the daughter was not made a party to the proceedings, the court clarified that the law does not require parents to proceed against all children.
"It is sole discretion of senior citizen to initiate such proceedings even against any one of the children," the judge ruled.
Upholding the lower authorities' decisions, the court ruled there was no legal infirmity and dismissed the writ petition.
Key takeaways from HC verdict
- Offering shelter does not exempt children from financial support obligations
- Cohabitation is not a legal requirement under the Senior Citizens Act
- Adopted children have the same legal and moral duty as biological ones
- Absence of parental income can't be presumed without proof
- Petitioner's claims of no cohabitation and past ownership of land were rejected
- Parents can file maintenance cases against any one child, not necessarily all
- Maintenance orders upheld as legally sound, Rs10,000 monthly support to continue