Can’t Remain A Mirage Shimmering In Desert Of Inflation: Karnataka High Court Recommends Revision Of ₹10k Limit On Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act
The Karnataka High Court said that the 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.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recommended to revise the limit of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed against the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “Maintenance cannot remain a mirage shimmering in the desert of inflation, nor an oasis that vanishes on approach. Relief that is illusory is no relief at all. It is, but a rope of sand, incapable of sustaining those for whom it is meant. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation’s wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old, albeit, inter alia.”
The Bench said that it cannot legislate, it cannot rewrite Section 9, yet it bears the responsibility to sensitize the Government of India, that a provision which stood meaningful in 2007, now mocks its own benevolence in 2025.
Advocate K.S. Mallikarjunaiah appeared for the Petitioners while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) N. Spoorthy Hegde and Advocate M. Vinod Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioners 1 to 4 were the children of the 2nd Respondent (father) and the 3rd Respondent was their step mother. 5th Petitioner was the daughter-in-law of the Respondents and wife of 4th Petitioner. The mother of Petitioners had died in 1996 and during her lifetime, the father of Petitioners had married 3rd Respondent. He owned schedule properties and the Petitioners inherited certain immovable properties. They were in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties claiming legitimate share thereon. When things stood thus, the 1st Petitioner caused a legal notice upon his father seeking allotment of his share in the properties. It was contended that on the death of the mother, the Petitioners and their father got the katha of item no. 1 of the properties to his name.
The Respondents alleged that they were continuously harassed by the Petitioners and hence, registered a complaint against them before the elders’ helpline. They further alleged that they were abused by the Petitioners, who had unauthorizedly occupied the premises. Allegedly, the Respondents were forcibly dispossessed due to which they were staying in a rented premise. Thereafter, a complaint was registered before the police station and it was closed after summoning the Petitioners and recording a non-cognizable report. The Petitioners instituted a suit seeking partition and separate possession. The Trial Court directed parties to maintain status quo in respect of item no. 1. The Respondents then approached the Assistant Commissioner, which held that the Respondents are entitled for a token compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The enactment is no sudden manifestation, it is the legislative echo of Article 41 of the Constitution of India, which enjoins the State with compass of its economic strength to extend public assistance in cases of unemployment, sickness, disablement and most crucially, in the fragile twilight of old age.”
The Court noted that the statement of objects and reasons which forms the very heart of the statute, is traceable to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), it speaks with unmistakable poignancy.
“It laments the withering of the joint family system and draws attention to the plight of countless elderly citizens who are abandoned, to face not only penury, but also the aching void of neglect. The law, thus, arose as a protective canopy to those citizens”, it added.
The Court said that securing the need for a senior citizen cannot be seen to remain the same as it was in 2007.
“Cost of living inflation has increased exponentially. With the inflation index today, what a senior citizen would have got in 2007 is reduced by 10% today even to the medical facilities. Therefore, the amount of ₹10,000/-, that is now subsisting, cannot be enough to achieve the real intent of the enactment. I say so on empirical validity”, it remarked.
The Court further noted that the 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.
“Can maintenance so meagre, achieve the objects of the Act? Can a citizen secure dignity, subsistence and medical aid within the confines of Section 9? requires pondering, so to say otherwise would be to reduce the existence of those senior citizens “as a mere animal existence”, it also asked.
Conclusion
In the light of spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the parties, the Court was of the opinion that, maintenance at Rs. 30,000/- to each senior citizen, should be appropriate to be granted by the Tribunal, during the subsistence of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner now remitted.
“While granting such maintenance, the Assistant Commissioner should look into the income of the senior citizen in the case at hand and direct the senior citizen to file an affidavit of the property standing in their name if any, and income derived from the said property, if any and then, assess continuance of maintenance, as is granted in the subject petition”, it directed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned Order, remitted back the matter for consideration afresh, directed the Petitioners to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Respondents as maintenance, and directed the Registrar to forward a copy of its Order to the Additional Solicitor General of India to place it before the Ministry of Finance to consider the recommendation so made in the course of the order.
Cause Title- Sunil H. Bohra & Ors. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors. [Cause Title- WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021 (GM – RES)]
