Case Law Details
Ishak Vs State of U.P. and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
The petition before the Allahabad High Court was filed by a senior citizen seeking directions against the authorities to ensure protection of his life and property. The petitioner argued that private respondents were obstructing him from constructing a gate on his property and were allegedly issuing threats. Relying on Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, the petitioner contended that it was the duty of the authorities to provide protection. He further referred to Sections 20 and 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, submitting that these provisions were intended to safeguard senior citizens not only from children and relatives but also from any person causing distress to them.
The State was represented by counsel during the proceedings. Upon examining the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner’s grievance was essentially related to alleged obstruction by neighbours in constructing a gate on his property. The Court observed that this situation did not require the discharge of duties by administrative authorities under Rule 21 of the 2014 Rules.
The Court examined the purpose and scope of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Act was enacted in response to social changes, particularly the weakening of the traditional joint family system, which had led to many elderly persons being neglected by their families. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act states that many older persons are forced to live alone and may face emotional neglect, as well as physical and financial insecurity. To address these concerns, the Act was introduced to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens as recognized under the Constitution.
The Court explained that Section 4 of the Act provides the entitlement of a senior citizen, including a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or property, to claim maintenance from his children who are not minors. In cases where a senior citizen has no children, such maintenance may be claimed from relatives who would inherit the senior citizen’s property. Under Section 5 of the Act, such a claim for maintenance can be filed by the senior citizen or parent before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7. If the senior citizen is incapable of filing the application personally, it may be filed by an authorized person or organization. The Tribunal also has the authority to take cognizance of such matters on its own.
The Court emphasized that the Act primarily aims to ensure maintenance and welfare for senior citizens through a statutory mechanism that enables them to seek maintenance from their children or, in certain cases, relatives. The Maintenance Tribunals established under the Act have jurisdiction to entertain claims related to maintenance. However, the Court clarified that the Act does not confer jurisdiction upon these tribunals or authorities to adjudicate disputes concerning property ownership or related rights, especially where such disputes involve third parties.
The Court held that issues relating to property disputes, including conflicts with neighbours over construction or use of property, fall within the jurisdiction of competent civil courts. Such disputes cannot be addressed through the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance related to alleged obstruction by neighbours in constructing a gate on his property. The Court concluded that this matter did not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Act or the Rules relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner was also unable to demonstrate that any legal right under the Act had been infringed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from seeking remedies that may be available to him under the law before the appropriate forum.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Firdaus Ahmad, learned advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client seeks direction upon respondent no.2 to ensure his life and property as is said respondent’s duty under Rule 21 of UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 20141. On query he submits, his client wants to construct gate on his property but private respondent nos.2 to 5 are obstructing and holding out threats. His client is a senior citizen.
2. Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State.
3. On observations made, Mr. Ahmad, in addition to referring to Rule 21 of the Rules 2014, as aforesaid, also relies on Sections 20 and 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 20072 to submit that the provisions come to aid of senior citizens, not only against children and relatives but also against any one who causes distress to them.
4. We find petitioner is complaining of obstruction for constructing gate on his property. It is not a situation where petitioner requires discharge of duty by the administrative authority under Rule 21, to come to his aid. The rules have been promulgated for carrying out objects of the Act 2007. Section 20 the Act 2007 relates to medical support for senior citizens and Section 21 is in regard to measures for publicity, awareness, etc., for welfare of the senior citizens. The said provisions are in no manner relevant to the controversy involved in the present case.
5. The statement of objects and reasons given in the Act clearly say that due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family, as a consequence many older persons are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. Taking into consideration that aging has become a major social challenge and there is need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons, the Act 2007 was enacted to provide for more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
6. Section 4 of the Act 2007 provides for entitlement for maintenance to a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning and out of the property owned by him against one or more of its children not being a minor and in the case of childless senior citizen against his relatives who would inherit his property.
7. In terms of Section 5 of the Act 2007, an application for maintenance under Section 4 may be made by a senior citizen or a parent, or, if he is incapable by any other person or organization authorized by him. The application is to be made before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7. The Tribunal may also take cognizance suo motu.
8. The Act 2007 is primarily aimed to provide for ensuring effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction.
9. The present being a case where the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner is regarding alleged obstruction by his neighbour in the construction of a gate on the petitioner’s property, the same in our view would not come within the purview of provisions of the Act 2007.
10. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a legal right infringed as available under the Act 2007. The writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal will not prevent him from finding his remedy as may be available in law.
Notes:
1 the Rules 2014
2 the Act 2007
Author Bio
