Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is only available to senior citizens and parents and no such right is extended to children or third parties.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by K Lokesh. The court said “The only reasonable interpretation of Section 16 of the Act is that the right of appeal is vested exclusively in senior citizens or parents, and not in any other individuals, including children or transferees.”Section 16 of the Act states that any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Referring to the statement of object and reasons of the Act, the court said “The Act is enacted for the welfare of a class of citizens with an object to provide immediate relief towards their amenities and basic physical needs. The aim was not only to provide amenities and basic physical needs, however with another broader object of speedy and inexpensive remedy.”It said, “When the text of Section 16 of the Act is read and understood in light of the object and reasons behind the legislation, it becomes abundantly clear that Parliament intended to provide the remedy of appeal under Section 16 solely to senior citizens or parents. Any alternative interpretation would lead to an absurd outcome, which is not permissible.”In the present case the deceased father of the appellant P. Krishna had executed a Gift Deed dated 27.02.2019 in favour of his son Ayyappa, gifting him a residential property. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Act before Assistant Commissioner, alleging fraudulent gift deed and denial of basic amenities by his son. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.02.2023 allowed the petition by directing to cancel the Gift Deed and Rectification Deed dated 02.04.2019. 4. P. Krishna thereafter bequeathed the property in favour of the appellant, through a registered Will dated 14.07.2023. Ayyappa preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 14.08.2023 by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal P. Krishna died thus the appellant and his sister were impleaded as legal representatives. Lokesh moved the High Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the single Judge thus passed the impugned order dated February 2, 2024 and permitted the appellant and respondent No.2 to agitate their rights before the competent court of law.The appellant mainly contended that appeal filed by respondent No.2 before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 of the Act is not maintainable. The appeal provision under Section 16 of the Act enables only senior citizens or a parent to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Respondent No.2 is not a senior citizen or a parent in the context of Section 16 of Act. The respondent submitted that the Gift Deed dated 27.02.2019 in favour of respondent No.2 is unconditional. There is no condition to provide basic amenities or basic physical needs. As such, there is no failure or refusal to provide such amenities and basic physical needs.Moreover, the father has invoked Section 23 of the Act under the misdirection of the siblings aiming at the property in question. The right to senior citizens under Section 23 of the Act is a personal right. The right to protection under the Act would exhaust itself with the death of the senior citizen. Such right cannot be extended/continued by the legal heirs. The proceedings would get abated on the death of the senior citizen.FindingsThe bench noted that the language of Section 16 of the Act is plain, clear, and unambiguous. This provision specifically and unequivocally grants the right of appeal exclusively to senior citizens.It said “Extending this right to any other person, including the transferee, is not permissible. Interpreting Section 23 of the Act to provide a right of appeal to the transferee or any other person would amount to rewriting the provision, a function that lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Granting such a right to the transferee would contradict the legislative intent behind the Act.” Emphasising that when a statutory provision is ambiguous, interpretative tools can be used to resolve the ambiguity. If, after such an exercise, the Court finds ambiguity, the interpretation should aim to fulfill the purpose of the provision. It said, “However, Section 16 of the Act is clear and unambiguous, leaving no necessity to resort to interpretation tools.”The court also clarified that if the children or transferee is aggrieved by an order under Section 23 of the Act, they are not without a remedy. They...

Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers