The Kerala High Court has clarified that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, the obligation to maintain a childless senior citizen rests solely on their legal heirs, not on any other relatives. The ruling arose in the context of interpreting Sections 2(g) and 4 of the Act, which govern the definitions and scope of responsibility for maintenance.
Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term “relative” in relation to a childless senior citizen as meaning any legal heir of such senior citizen who is not a minor and who is either in possession of, or would inherit, the senior citizen’s property after their death. This definition is crucial in determining who can be made liable to provide maintenance in situations where the senior citizen does not have children.
The Court observed that the wording of the statute is clear and specific. In the absence of children, liability to maintain a senior citizen cannot be imposed broadly on all relatives. Instead, only those individuals who qualify as legal heirs and meet the conditions set out in the provision can be held responsible. This ensures that the obligation is directly linked to a rightful claim over the senior citizen’s estate or property, thereby balancing both the rights and responsibilities of potential heirs.
The matter before the Court involved a challenge to an order passed under the Act, where maintenance had been sought from persons who were not legal heirs as per the statutory definition. The petitioners argued that they had no legal obligation under the Act, as they neither possessed any property belonging to the senior citizen nor stood to inherit it. The respondents contended that, in the spirit of the legislation, broader family members should be made liable to provide support to elderly individuals without children.
In its decision, the High Court firmly rejected an expansive interpretation of liability. It held that when the legislature has specifically defined the term “relative” in a restrictive manner for the purpose of childless senior citizens, courts cannot enlarge that definition to include other persons not covered by it. Doing so would amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible.
The Court also highlighted the rationale behind the provision. Linking the duty to maintain with the prospect of inheritance or current possession of the senior citizen’s property creates a fair and logical connection. Those who are likely to benefit from the senior citizen’s estate have a legal duty to ensure their welfare during their lifetime. Conversely, persons who have no legal claim over the property cannot be compelled to bear such responsibility merely because of distant family ties.
By reinforcing this interpretation, the Kerala High Court underscored that maintenance proceedings under the Act must be initiated only against those who meet the statutory requirements. The ruling provides clarity and prevents arbitrary extension of liability, ensuring that only legal heirs who satisfy the possession or inheritance criteria can be directed to maintain a childless senior citizen.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.