Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
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 in tune with the cost of living index.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while disposing of a petition filed by four sons and a daughter-in-law of a Bengaluru-based senior citizen couple.
Section 9 mandates 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.
It perused the cost inflation index as released by the Ministry of Finance and 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.
Justice Nagaprasanna said, “Can maintenance be so meagre, 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”.
“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 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 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 court said.
The court 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.