'Nation's Wealth Measured By Care For Elderly': Karnataka HC Suggests Increase In ₹10K Cap On Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act

The Karnataka High Court has recommended to the Union Government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which prescribes a ceiling of Rs 10,000 which can be ordered to be paid as maintenance to senior citizens by the Tribunal.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation's wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old.”

It also opined, “The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.”

For context, Section 9 reads thus: Order for maintenance.—(1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct. (2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand rupees per month.

The bench noted that the Act came into force on 29-12-2007. The provisions have undergone several amendments. It was amended by Act 34 of 2019. But one provision has remained the same.

A bill was introduced in Bill No.374 of 2019, called the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill 2019. The bill, in particular, envisaged the substitution of Section 9. It sought to efface the aforesaid ceiling of ₹10,000/-, empowering Tribunals to determine maintenance in proportion to the dignity and the place of the senior citizen. “Alas, the legislative seed never sprouted and the cap remains frozen in time,” the court said.

It was observed that the central enactment caps it at Rs 10,000/- and no state can frame Rules, which could travel beyond sub-section (2) of Section 9 on grant of maintenance beyond Rs 10,000. Therefore, the State of Karnataka or every other State has formulated Rules which cap it at Rs 10,000; ostensibly so, as the State Rules cannot be contrary to the Act, under which the Rules are framed.

The bench said, “The enactment was to be need based. Securing the need for a senior citizen cannot be seen to remain the 31 same as it was in 2007. Cost of living inflation has increased exponentially. With the inflation index today, what a senior citizen would have got in 2007 is reduced by 10% today even to the medical facilities. Therefore, the amount of Rs 10,000 that is now subsisting, cannot be enough to achieve the real intent of the enactment.”

It referred to the graph of the cost inflation index as found on the website of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and said, “What one could procure for Rs 100/- in 2007, requires nearly Rs 1000/- in 2025. Prices of food, shelter and medicine have climbed steeply; only the statutory cap of Rs 10,000, has remained petrified, untouched, notwithstanding the march of time.”

Following this, it questioned “Can maintenance so meagre, achieve the objects of the Act? Can a citizen secure dignity, subsistence and medical aid within the confines of Section 9? It requires pondering, so to say otherwise would be to reduce the existence of those senior citizens “as a mere animal existence”.

It suggested the Union Government to consider revising the ceiling on the Maintenance amount, and said “Maintenance cannot remain a mirage shimmering in the desert of inflation, nor an oasis that vanishes on approach. Relief that is illusory is no relief at all. It is, but a rope of sand, incapable of sustaining those for whom it is meant.”

The court thus directed the Registrar to forward a copy of this order to the Additional Solicitor General of India to place it before the Ministry of Finance to consider the recommendation so made in the course of the order.

Background

The directions were given while hearing a petition filed by Sunil H Bohra & others challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of the Tribunal directed the petitioners to pay a compensation of Rs 5,00,000, jointly and severally to their parents.

The bench, on going through the impugned order said “The order does not indicate as to the steps taken towards service. Whether the petitioners were served at all with the notice from the Tribunal is not forthcoming. Therefore, the order admittedly is ex parte, where narration in the order is only with regard to the allegations of respondents 2 and 3.”

It added that “It is ununderstandable under what provision the Tribunal grants Rs 5,00,000 as maintenance. The power to grant maintenance is under Section 9 of the Act, and Rule 16 of the 2009 Karnataka Rules. These provisions would hold that the maximum that can be paid is Rs 10,000/- per month.”

Following which, it held “The order of the Tribunal refers to grant of compensation or payment of compensation of Rs 5,00,000. The word 'compensation' is not found either in the Act or in the Rules. What is found is only grant of maintenance to the aged parents relating to food, clothing, residence and medical attendance. Therefore, maintenance could have been granted, but not compensation of Rs 5,00,000 lumpsum.”

Allowing the petition, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the tribunal for consideration afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and pass orders in accordance with law.

It directed the petitioners to pay Rs 10,000 per month each to respondents 2 and 3 as maintenance from 16-04-2021, till the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Further, it enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs 30,000 to each of the petitioners, till the matter is decided by the 1st respondent/Assistant Commissioner.

Appearance: Advocate K S Mallikarjunaiah for Petitioners.

HCGP Spoorthy Hegde N FOR R1.

Advocate M Vinod Kumar FOR R2 AND R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

Case Title: Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order