The Kerala High Court has broadened the interpretation of the terms “children” and “relative” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to include a daughter-in-law, provided certain legal and factual criteria are satisfied. This ruling emerged in the context of a case where a senior citizen had approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking maintenance and return of property from his daughter-in-law. The High Court bench, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, delivered a judgment that aims to reinforce the legislative intent behind the Act, which is to protect and provide for the welfare of senior citizens.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was enacted to ensure that elderly individuals who may be neglected by their children or relatives receive proper care and support. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "children" to include son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter, while Section 2(g) defines "relative" as any legal heir of a childless senior citizen who is in possession of or would inherit the senior citizen's property. Although a daughter-in-law is not explicitly mentioned in these definitions, the Court recognized that in appropriate circumstances, she could be treated as a “relative” under the Act, especially if she is in possession of property belonging to the senior citizen or stands to inherit it.
The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act must be interpreted purposively to fulfill its welfare-oriented objectives. The judges noted that the law was not enacted to allow beneficiaries of senior citizens' property to escape liability by exploiting literal interpretations of the statute. Accordingly, they ruled that if a daughter-in-law is in possession of or derives benefit from the property of a senior citizen, she may be legally obligated to provide maintenance, even if she is not specifically listed among the persons liable under the Act.
In the case under consideration, the Maintenance Tribunal had directed the daughter-in-law to return property and pay maintenance to her in-laws. However, upon review, the High Court found that the Tribunal had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the ownership of the property and whether the daughter-in-law was actually in possession of it. The Court observed that without establishing these foundational facts, the Tribunal's order could not be sustained. As a result, the High Court quashed the Tribunal’s directive but clarified that this did not preclude the senior citizens from pursuing appropriate remedies in accordance with the law, provided they could establish relevant facts regarding ownership and possession.
The High Court reiterated that before imposing any maintenance liability on a daughter-in-law, the Tribunal must determine whether she holds property that belonged to the senior citizen or is in line to inherit it. This requirement ensures that the statutory obligation to provide maintenance is not applied arbitrarily and is instead based on concrete legal and factual grounds. The judges stressed that the aim of the legislation is not to penalize individuals merely because of their relationship to the senior citizen but to ensure justice where property and support obligations are evident.
This judgment highlights the need for a balanced and context-sensitive application of the Senior Citizens Act. While the law is designed to protect the elderly, it must also be implemented in a manner that respects due process and requires a fair inquiry into the facts of each case. The Kerala High Court’s ruling thus serves to strengthen the protective mechanism of the Act while preventing its misuse.
The Court's interpretation ensures that those who benefit from a senior citizen's property cannot deny responsibility under the Act by relying on technicalities in definition. At the same time, it mandates that authorities conduct thorough and fair inquiries before passing any order, preserving the rights of all parties involved. This approach reinforces the Act’s core objective—providing financial and emotional security to the elderly—while ensuring that any maintenance obligations are imposed only where justified by evidence.
Ultimately, the Kerala High Court's decision reflects a progressive and pragmatic understanding of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. By extending the scope of responsibility to a daughter-in-law under specific legal conditions, the judgment aligns with the social realities that often place elderly parents at the mercy of relatives who are in possession of their property. At the same time, it affirms the principles of natural justice, ensuring that any such extension of liability is grounded in proper factual findings and legal reasoning.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.