The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a son aggrieved by a maintenance order against him for his mother. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 8% interest on the awarded maintenance amount from the date of default.
Petitioner directed to pay interest at 8% per annum on maintenance of Rs.3,500/- from 26th February 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp-910.20 - 19.odt
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.910 OF 2020
Rajiv Sadashiv Jadhav … Petitioner
Vs.
Sushila Sadashiv Jadhav and Anr.… Respondents
Mr. Rushikesh Gajanan Patil for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad – Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 11th MARCH 2020.
P.C.:
1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
APP for the Respondent No.2. The petitioner herein happens to be the son
of the Respondent No.1. The husband of the Respondent No.1 expired on
1st January 2015. Prior to the demise of the husband, the petitioner was
residing separately however, thereafter, he started residing with his
mother.
2The Respondent No.1 faced harassment and ill-treatment at
the hands of the petitioner and his wife, hence, the Respondent No.1 was
constrained to file an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under
1 of 5
2 wp-910.20 - 19.odt
section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007. It is contended in the said application that the petitioner herein
has caused mental harassment to the Respondent No.1 at the behest of his
wife. That the petitioner and his wife had gone to the extent of assaulting
her. She had also filed police report. The petitioner was arrested under
section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of non-
cognizable report filed by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 had
made all efforts to convince her son by way of mediation through her
relatives. Being fed up with the harassment meted out to her at the hands
of the petitioner and his wife, the Respondent No.1 had started residing
with younger daughter. However, the petitioner continued his interference
in the said family.
3The petitioner is running a shop in Kapil Tirth Market. He
owns two two-wheelers and one four wheeler. That he had purchased a
flat in Fulewadi and also undertaken construction of extra rooms.
4The Sub-Divisional Officer upon considering rival contentions
had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- towards
maintenance to the Respondent No.1 besides the expenses for medical
2 of 5
3 wp-910.20 - 19.odt
treatment/health care. The Sub-Divisional Officer had also directed the
petitioner to give a self-contained room to the Respondent No.1. The
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment)
Bill 2019 defines ‘Welfare” to include the provision of food, healthcare and
other amenities necessary for senior citizens. The Bill expands the
definition further to include, housing, clothing, safety and other amenities
necessary for the physical and mental well-being of a senior citizens or
parents.
5Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
petitioner had approached the Additional Collector. It was contended in
the appeal memo that the Respondent No.1 is capable of earning. That she
sells pickles and earns Rs.200/- everyday and therefore, grant of
maintenance is not justified. The Additional Collector after hearing rival
parties had upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and
hence, this petition.
6The Appellate Court has observed that the Respondent No.1 is
more than 62 years old. That the house where she is residing stands in her
name. That she has no capacity to earn. She was physically and mentally
harassed at the hands of the petitioner.
3 of 5
4 wp-910.20 - 19.odt
7In fact, it was the duty of the petitioner to maintain his
mother who happens to be a widow. That he has not allowed her to reside
peacefully. The petitioner has failed to maintain his old aged mother. She
is protected under the Act. It is more than clear that there is negligence on
the part of the petitioner to perform his duties towards his mother.
8The Sub-Divisional Officer has granted a paltry amount of
Rs.3,500/-. In view of this, Respondent No.1 is at liberty to seek
enhancement of maintenance amount. It is unfortunate that a moral
obligation has crystalized into a duty enforceable by law.
9The appellate Court has failed to comply with section 14 of
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The order of maintenance was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 30th
April 2019 and the appeal is dismissed in December 2019. However, the
appellate Court has not granted any interest on the said amount although
it is more than clear that the petitioner has not paid any maintenance
since 26th February 2018. Section 14 reads thus :-
“14. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. Where any Tribunal makes an order for maintenance made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the4 of 5
5 wp-910.20 - 19.odt
amount of maintenance, simple interest shall also be paid
at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of
making the application as may be determined by the
Tribunal which shall not be less than five per cent. and not
more than eighteen per cent.:
Provided that where any application for maintenance
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974) is pending before a Court at the
commencement of this Act, then the Court shall allow the
withdrawal of such application on the request of the parent
and such parent shall be entitled to file an application for
maintenance before the Tribunal.”
10The amendment Bill also provides that if the children fail to
comply with the maintenance order, the Tribunal may issue a warrant to
levy the due amount. Failure to pay such fine may lead to imprisonment of
upto one month or until the payment is made, whichever is earlier.
11In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
12The petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum
on the maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- to the Respondent No.1 from
26th February 2018. The petition is dismissed and stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct payment of interest on maintenance awarded under Section 14 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajiv Sadashiv Jadhav
Sushila Sadashiv Jadhav
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court