Maintenance Tribunal Empowered To Protect Properties Of Senior Citizens When Obligations Of Care Are Breached: Bombay High Court

The Court emphasised that the jurisdiction and power available to the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act must be interpreted in light of the statement of objects and reasons of the statute, and in furtherance of the fundamental right to life and health of senior citizens.

The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a charitable hospital society and the hospital acting as the temporary guardian of a 76-year-old patient who, according to the petitioners, had been abandoned by her son despite owning property and despite the availability of means to care for her.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale examined the statutory framework and the powers of the Maintenance Tribunal and held that “the Maintenance Tribunal, under Section 23(2) read with section 23(3) of the Welfare Act, 2007, will be well within its right, power and authority to pass appropriate orders to secure and protect the properties of the parent or senior citizen and their right of maintenance, for the benefit and social and financial security and wellbeing of the parent or senior citizen”.

While making these observations, the Bench elaborated: "Nowadays, parents and senior citizens, face new, different and novel challenges. The same need to be catered for. The Welfare Act, 2007, being a welfare legislation must be interpreted in a liberal manner to advance the aims and objects of the Act. The provisions thereof, must be construed liberally, and to the advantage of the Senior Citizens so as to ensure that it furthers the very social purpose and welfare of the parents and senior citizens".

Advocate Pradip Chavan appeared for the petitioners. Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, and Advocate Gauri Joglekar represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner hospital society approached the Bobay High Court, stating that a 76-year-old patient had been admitted for emergency treatment due to imbalance and weakness, was found severely malnourished with an acute right MCA infarct, and was stabilised and declared fit for discharge by early October 2025.

The hospital asserted that the patient’s son refused to take her home, declined to settle outstanding medical dues, interfered with treatment, and failed to cooperate with discharge procedures. The elderly patient’s son denied abandonment, sought the patient’s original medical records, and claimed inability to pay the bills while expressing concerns regarding treatment.

The State, however, submitted that if the son genuinely suspected medical negligence, the correct course was to take discharge and pursue remedies thereafter, rather than leave the patient in continued admission against medical advice.

In view of the patient’s alleged abandonment despite owning property and having an earning son, the petitioners approached the authorities. The Court also noted the State’s submissions regarding the need to secure the patient’s property in the event of abandonment and the possibility of a restraint order to prevent misuse pending appropriate proceedings under the 2007 Act.

Court’s Observation

The Bombay High Court, at the outset stated that “this is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court and strikes an emotional chord as the Court is called upon to look into a matter, where a son has failed to look after and care for his own ailing mother and instead, thought it appropriate to give precedence to raise and pursue legal remedies”.

The Court then undertook a detailed examination of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, stating that " a bare perusal of the Welfare Act,2007, would indicate that the State Govenrment is clearly empowered and will be well within its authority and power, to chalk out a plan to protect life and property of the senior citizens and act in furtherance thereof".

Referring specifically to Section 23, the Bench explained that Section 23(1) contemplates a situation of conditional transfer of property and is not attracted in the present case. However, Section 23(2), read with Section 22(2), is broader and deals with the enforcement of the “right to receive maintenance out of an estate.” The Court noted that “property” under Section 2(f) includes “rights and interests of every kind” and that a welfare statute must be interpreted liberally to advance its object.

The Bench held that the power to enforce the right to maintenance necessarily includes the authority to protect the property of senior citizens, and that protective orders, such as restraint orders or eviction orders, may be issued to preserve such property when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain and look after a parent or senior citizen. Such power, the Court held, is incidental to ensuring the well-being, safety, security, and maintenance of senior citizens.

“In a welfare and beneficial legislation the power/jurisdiction under section 23 of the Tribunal constituted under the Act, ought to include the power to order protection of property for the safety, social security and economic/financial stability of the parent/senior citizen. Any other narrow or restrictive interpretation of the powers under section 23 would defeat the very purpose and object of the Welfare Act, 2007 which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies to the elderly”, the Bench further remarked.

Consequently, the Court concluded that permitting the son to continue using or dealing with the property would defeat the object of the Act, whereas empowering the Tribunal to protect all her properties would ensure her maintenance and well-being.

Conclusion

The Court directed the Maintenance Tribunal to suo-motu initiate proceedings under Section 23(2) read with Section 22(2) of the 2007 Act to protect and preserve all movable and immovable properties of the patient, to secure such properties exclusively for her maintenance and well-being while she remains abandoned, and to ensure that Respondent No.3 does not use or enjoy the estate despite breaching his duty to care for his mother.

The Petition was allowed in the aforesaid terms, and the matter was directed to be listed on 24th November 2025 for reporting compliance with the order.

Cause Title: The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:49555-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocate Pradip Chavan with Advocates Yogesh Naidu, Wesley Menezes, Sabiya Kazi, Anukul Seth and Delilah Jeffeerrey

Respondents: Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, with M.M. Deshmukh, Acting Public Prosecutor, Ashish Satpute, APP, Advocate Gauri Joglekar

Click here to read/download Judgment