Senior Citizen Receiving Regular Pension Not Entitled To Make Application For Maintenance: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court was considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Officer, Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal and District Magistrate, Nagpur.
Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench)
While dealing with a maintenance case instituted by a senior citizen against his son and daughter-in-law, the Bombay High Court has held that a senior citizen who receives a regular pension as well as a family pension of the deceased wife would not be entitled to make an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Officer, Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal and District Magistrate, Nagpur.
Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Single Bench of Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande explained, “It, therefore, follows as a necessary corollary that a person like the petitioner, who admittedly receives a regular pension as well as a family pension of the deceased wife, would not fall within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act of 2007 so as to make him entitled to make an application under Section 5 of the said Act.”
Advocate Manish Rajendra Johrapurkar represented the Petitioner while Advocate Saurabh Chaudhari represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
There were certain ongoing disputes between a couple (respondents) and the husband’s father (petitioner). The father preferred an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which came to be registered as a Maintenance Application
Case. In response to the notice issued by the Officer, the respondents filed a reply. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. The applicant/petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of rejection, filed an appeal under Section 16 before the District Magistrate (Appellate Authority). However, the said Authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Competent Authority under the Act while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, had recorded a finding that the entire object of enacting the Senior Citizens Act is to provide for welfare and maintenance of senior citizens. It had proceeded to observe that since the petitioner has been regularly receiving pension as also family pension of deceased wife, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked to order eviction of the respondent. It was further noticed that the appellate Authority in appeal had concurred with the said finding.
The Bench stated, “Even though a factually incorrect finding has been recorded by the appellate Authority of non registration of Gift Deed, the fact remains that the petitioner is not a person ‘ who is unable to maintain himself’. Furthermore, the appellate Authority has rightly recorded that the validity or otherwise of the Gift-Deed is an issue which could not be within the scope and ambit of the appellate Authority. Thus, there is no perversity or otherwise and a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Authorities below.”
Considering the provisions of the Act, the Bench held that only such senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or out of the property owned by him is entitled to make an application under Section 5. The Bench further held that the petitioner, receiving regular pension as well as a family pension of the deceased wife, will not be entitled to make an application under Section 5.
Thus, holding that the impugned orders were not perverse, the Bench rejected the petition.
Cause Title: Bhimrao v. Ashish (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:11476)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Manish Rajendra Johrapurkar
Respondent: Advocates Saurabh Chaudhari, Abhijit Meshram, Additional Government Pleader A. S. Fulzel