Hyderabad: Stringent provisions provide for maintenance under personal laws, the Code of Criminal Procedure and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, but several senior citizens are simply unable to press their claims due to lack of awareness.
The Supreme Court, while expressing serious concern over the plight of senior citizens, had asked the Centre last Friday on the steps it had taken to protect the interests of the aged and the infirm.
According to legal experts, it is the duty of the state as well as the family members to take care of an elderly person. Due to rampant illiteracy and lack of awareness, many senior citizens are not aware of their rights.
The rights of parents to seek maintenance from their children are protected by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also under the Muslim Personal Law.
Though there are no provisions for maintenance of parents under the Christian and Parsi personal laws, there is a provision under the Criminal Procedure Code irrespective of the community, under Section 125.
Apart from personal laws and the Criminal Procedure Code, the Centre has enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution by making it a legal obligation for children to provide maintenance to parents and senior citizens.
According to Hyderabad High Court lawyer A. Santosh Kumar, Sections 4 to 18 deal with maintenance of parents and senior citizens. Those entitled for maintenance under the Act are parents, grandparents and senior citizens who are unable to maintain themselves.
In case of childless senior citizens, their relatives should look after them. The maximum amount that may be ordered for maintenance of a senior citizen by a tribunal is to be prescribed by the state government. Mr Kumar said maintenance here would mean food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment.
According to officials of Telangana and AP governments, after commencement of the Act in 2007, the erstwhile AP government had made rules in 2011 for implementation of the Act by designating the revenue divisional officers as presiding officers of the tribunal to deal with complaints of parents claiming maintenance under the Act. The same rules were adopted by the Telangana state after its formation.
Legal experts say that though the tribunals were constituted at sub division, district and state levels to deal with cases of the elderly, not much publicity was given to educate the elderly to claim their rights.
They reminded that the Supreme Court had also recently emphasised on the need for publicity to make elderly parents in towns and rural areas aware of their rights.
HC advocate N. Sreedhar Reddy said though Hyderabad had the highest rate of elderly abuse, of 37.50 per cent, among Tier-1 metro cities in a survey conducted by Help Age India in 2013, parents were not coming forward to file cases against their children.
Father wins 4-year-old battle
Mr M. Jagadeesan, 74, a resident of Madaraalli near Krishnagiri of Tamil Nadu, got back his land and house from his elder son in 2012 after four years of legal struggle, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
He was evicted from the house he had built on a 6.6-acre parcel of land. In spite of dividing the land between both sons equally, the elder son occupied the land and the house belonging to Mr Jagadeesan.
Mr Jagadeesan then approached the collector who ordered the social welfare department to try for a conciliation under the Act. When efforts did not yield results, the case was referred to the revenue divisional officer.
After an inquiry, the RDO pronounced his judgement in favour of Mr Jagadeesan. His son, Mr Anbarasan, appealed to the committee headed by the collector. But the appellate committee upheld the RDO’s order.
In Telangana, son sues mother
The Hyderabad High Court recently passed in favour of a woman to transfer a house from the name of her son to her name. The revenue divisional officer (RDO), Hyderabad, had prevented the process on the ground that she had failed to produce evidence that the house was purchased with the earnings of her husband.
Mr M.P. Tej Babu had moved court recently against his mother Ms M.P. Vasanthi against orders passed by the RDO transferring his plot located in Jubilee Hills in the name his mother under the 2007 Act. The High Court quashed the order of the RDO due to lack of proper evidence to prove the claim of the petitioner’s mother.
Mom wins maintenance
Ms H.S. Lakshmi, an 84-year-old native of Karnataka, succeeded in getting maintenance of '3,000 per month from her son. When the son moved Karnataka HC, it turned down his plea, observing that “the object of the Act has to be kept in mind.
The object is not to punish a person for neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. It is to provide speedy remedy to parents and senior citizens, who are in distress, by a summary procedure.
The provision has to be liberally construed as the primary object is to give justice to senior citizens by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. They are intended to achieve this social purpose.”
