Senior citizen’s maintenance entitlement affirmed, but monthly allowance reduced to Rs.12,000 considering overall circumstances.

The petitioner, a 72-year-old widow and senior citizen, had a limited family pension of approximately ₹2,200 per month and claimed dependence upon her children for maintenance and medical expenses. She was residing with her married daughter, who was providing her accommodation, daily necessities, care and medical assistance. The petitioner alleged that she had been compelled to leave the residence of respondent No. 1, her son, who was financially capable of maintaining her but had neglected to do so.

The Maintenance Tribunal, Raipur, by order dated 10 January 2025, directed the son to pay ₹15,000 per month towards the petitioner’s maintenance. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 18 September 2025, set aside or modified the Tribunal’s order. The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking restoration and implementation of the Tribunal’s order.

The son contested the petition, asserting that the petitioner was voluntarily residing with her daughter and possessed independent financial resources, including pension, interest, rental income, fixed deposits, postal savings, mutual funds and bank deposits. He denied neglect and contended that the appellate order was reasoned and did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner, as a senior citizen unable to maintain herself adequately, was entitled to maintenance from her son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?

Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Maintenance Tribunal at ₹15,000 per month required interference or reconsideration in view of the petitioner’s residence and care with her daughter and the financial circumstances of the parties?

Whether the impugned appellate order warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Sections 4(1)–(3), 8, 9 and 10 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 4 entitles a senior citizen or parent unable to maintain himself or herself from personal earnings or owned property to seek maintenance from one or more children, and imposes an obligation on children to provide for the parent’s needs so that the parent may lead a normal life.

Under Section 8, the Maintenance Tribunal may follow summary procedure and exercise specified civil-court powers; Section 9 empowers it to order a monthly maintenance allowance where neglect or refusal is established; and Section 10 permits alteration of the allowance upon proof of changed circumstances or mistake of fact.

Relying on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730, the Court reiterated that a child’s obligation to maintain a parent is not conditional upon possession of, or a right to inherit, the parent’s property.

The Court also relied on Devendra Khanna & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 14044, concerning the entitlement of senior citizens to maintenance.

The Court recognised that the petitioner’s status as a senior citizen and her entitlement to maintenance were not defeated merely because she was residing with her daughter or possessed some financial resources. Applying Section 4 and the principle in S. Vanitha, the Court held that the son’s statutory obligation to maintain his mother continued independently of any inheritance or property-related claim.

However, while determining the appropriate quantum, the Court considered that the petitioner was presently residing with her daughter, who was taking care of her day-to-day needs, along with the financial circumstances of the son. Since the parties agreed to abide by a reasonable amount fixed by the Court, the Court maintained the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to maintenance but found that the amount of ₹15,000 per month required reconsideration.

It reduced the monthly maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹12,000, taking into account the petitioner’s residence and care with her daughter and the overall financial circumstances of the parties. The writ petition was disposed of with this modification and direction.