Advocates Have Right To Plead On Behalf Of Parties In Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunals : Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that whenever an advocate puts in an appearance for any of the parties before a Maintenance Tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, s/he will have the right to be heard and to plea before the said tribunal.

A single-judge bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes noted that a Maintenance Tribunal in Mapusa had passed an order against a son to pay Rs 10000 per month to his old mother, while refusing to hear the son's advocate while relying on Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

"In all cases pending before the Maintenance Tribunals, where an Advocate puts in an appearance for any of the parties, he would have the right of audience and to plead on behalf of the parties in the cause before such Tribunal, in terms of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Since the entire matter proceeded in the absence of representation of the Petitioner through an Advocate, who had applied for representing the Petitioner through application dated April 6, 2023, which was rejected, this would vitiate the final Order and Judgment dated October 12, 2023 impugned herein, which would have to be set aside also on this ground," Justice Menezes held in the order passed on June 9.

The court noted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers an 'absolute right' on advocates to appear and plead before any court or tribunals. It further noted that in the instant case, the Tribunal relied on section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, which has already been held 'ultra vires' by the Kerala High Court in the case of Adv KG Suresh vs Union of India as it is contrary to section 30 of the Advocates Act.

"The effect of the judgment in Adv KG Suresh's case, would be that Section 17 stands struck down as being ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 in relation to the entire territory of India, which includes the State of Goa or any other State. Consequently, the Maintenance Tribunal ought to have proceeded to hear the matter, where the application seeking representation through an Advocate was sought, granting the parties assistance through legal counsel, instead of rejecting the application by the impugned order dated April 6, 2023 and the said order is therefore contrary to the declared law and is consequently quashed and set aside," the judge opined. 

With these observations, the court quashed the Maintenance Tribunal's order directing the petitioner son to pay Rs 10 thousand per month maintenance to his old mother and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to once again hear the plea afresh and even to make the three daughters of the old woman, party to the proceedings. 

Till then, the court has ordered the petitioner son to pay Rs 3,000 monthly maintenance to the old mother. 

Appearance:

Advocate Deepak Gaonkar appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocate Sahil Sardesai represented the Respondents.

Case Title: Santosh Savlaram Morajkar vs Sumitra Savlaram Moraskar (Writ Petition 219 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment