Orissa HC: Senior Citizen Must Prove Inability to Maintain Himself to Claim Maintenance
The Orissa High Court has ruled that a senior citizen cannot claim maintenance from their children unless they prove they are unable to maintain themselves. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed by a son challenging an earlier order directing him to pay ₹5,000 per month to his father.
Case Background
The father (aged 69 years) had filed a petition under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that his son had ousted him from the house and refused to maintain him. The case was heard by the Maintenance Tribunal, which ordered the son to:
- Hand over the house gate key to his father
- Pay ₹5,000 as monthly maintenance
The son appealed to the Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, but the appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld. Dissatisfied, the son moved the Orissa High Court.
Legal Arguments
The son’s counsel argued that:
- No evidence was presented to show that the father was unable to maintain himself.
- Section 9 of the 2007 Act states that maintenance can be granted only if the children have neglected or refused to maintain the senior citizen—which was not established in this case.
- Rule 14 of the Odisha Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 was not followed while calculating the maintenance amount. This rule ensures that the amount does not exceed the child’s total monthly income divided by the number of dependents.
On the other hand, the father’s counsel argued that:
- The son had not raised these issues before the lower courts.
- The father was financially dependent, had no source of income, and had been thrown out of his home by his son.
High Court’s Ruling
The Orissa High Court found that:
- The Tribunal and the Appellate Authority had failed to determine whether the father was genuinely incapable of maintaining himself.
- The language of Section 9 requires the Tribunal to be fully satisfied that neglect or refusal to maintain a parent has occurred.
- The authorities did not consider Rule 14 while deciding the maintenance amount.
As a result, the High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and sent the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing, directing it to follow the legal provisions correctly.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
