Seniors with no offspring in Kerala are entitled to legal maintenance, only from their direct heirs, as ruled by the High Court.
Kerala High Court Clarifies Maintenance Obligations for Childless Senior Citizens
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has provided clarity on the definition of a 'relative' under Section 2(g) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The ruling, delivered by Justices Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar, sheds light on the conditions that must be met for a person to be obligated to maintain a childless senior citizen.
The case in question involved a senior citizen who gifted her property to her nephew in 1992. After the nephew's death in 2008, the property passed to his wife, the appellant. The senior citizen sought maintenance from the appellant, arguing that possession of her property by the appellant created a duty to maintain her under Section 4(4) of the Act.
However, the Court ruled that the appellant was not obligated to provide maintenance as she was not a legal heir under the Indian Succession Act. The Court emphasized that possession of the senior citizen’s property alone does not create an obligation to maintain unless the person satisfies all the criteria, especially being a legal heir under personal law.
According to the ruling, a person is considered a "relative" liable to maintain a childless senior citizen only if all the following specific conditions are met:
- The senior citizen is childless.
- The person is a legal heir of the senior citizen under personal law.
- The person is not a minor.
- The person is either in possession of the senior citizen’s property or would inherit the property after the senior citizen’s death.
The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the plain language of the section and avoids any construction that would do injustice to it. The ruling overturns earlier broader interpretations that made mere possession or inheritance prospects without legal heirship sufficient for maintenance liability.
The Court's decision is a significant development in clarifying the obligations of family members towards childless senior citizens. It underscores the need for a clear understanding of the legal framework governing maintenance obligations and highlights the importance of following the literal interpretation of the law.
The appellant in the case was represented by advocates RT Pradeep, M Bindudas, and KC Harish, while the respondent was represented by advocate S Sujini. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the single-judge's decision, but left it open for the aunt to pursue any other remedies available under law for an alleged violation of the gift deed's terms.
Read also:
- Chest X-ray findings in heart failure: An overview
- Improvement indicators for pneumonia: Recognizing the signs and additional information
- UK-Based Company, 32Co, Expands Comprehensive Sleep Centre Network Nationwide to Address Escalating Sleep Disorder Predicament
- Expanded Techniques for Amplifying Your Aesthetics Enterprise Growth
