Daughter-in-law cannot be ordered to pay maintenance under Senior Citizens Act when senior citizen has children, Kerala HC rules

The petitioner, Hajara, was the widow and daughter-in-law of the second respondent, Fathima, a senior citizen and mother of the petitioner’s deceased husband.

On 20 February 2021, the second respondent executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner, reserving a life interest in the property.

Subsequently, the second respondent initiated proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the petitioner had failed to maintain her despite the settlement deed.

The Maintenance Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 per month to the second respondent, who was residing with her son, the sixth respondent, and expressed a desire to continue residing with him.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that the second respondent had other children who were financially capable of maintaining her and that the Act did not authorise the Tribunal to direct a daughter-in-law to pay maintenance.

Whether the second respondent could seek an order of maintenance exclusively against the petitioner, her daughter-in-law, when she had other children capable of maintaining her?

Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to direct a daughter-in-law to pay maintenance to her mother-in-law?

The Court applied Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which permits a Maintenance Tribunal to order “children or relatives” who neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen to pay a monthly maintenance allowance.

Section 2(a) defines “children” to include a son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter, excluding minors, while Section 2(g) defines “relative” as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of, or would inherit, the senior citizen’s property.

On a plain reading of these provisions, a daughter-in-law is not included within the statutory categories of persons against whom a maintenance order may be issued; the definition of “relative” was also inapplicable because the second respondent was not childless.

The Court noted that the second respondent had five children, including the petitioner’s deceased husband, and that respondents 3 to 6 were also her children.

Despite the petitioner’s specific assertion that the other children were financially capable of maintaining their mother, there was no effective rebuttal.

The Court further considered that the second respondent was residing with the sixth respondent, her son, and wished to continue residing with him.

In those circumstances, selecting only the petitioner, who was the widow of the second respondent’s deceased son, for payment of maintenance was held to be unjustified.

More fundamentally, Section 9 authorises orders only against “children or relatives,” and the statutory definitions did not include a daughter-in-law; Section 2(g) could not apply because the second respondent had children.

The settlement deed could not therefore confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal contrary to the statutory scheme.

It held that the petitioner, as daughter-in-law, could not be proceeded against under Section 9 of the Act in the circumstances of the case, particularly when the second respondent had other children.

However, amounts already paid by the petitioner pursuant to the Tribunal’s order were not directed to be refunded by the second respondent.