In a notable decision, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that lawyers have the legal right to represent parties before Maintenance Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Justice Valmiki Menezes quashed the tribunal’s earlier order that denied this right to an advocate representing a son, Santosh Morajkar, in a case filed by his mother seeking maintenance.
Read Also:- Maratha Reservation Case: Bombay High Court Allows 10% Quota for 2025, Final Decision Awaited
The tribunal had directed the son to pay ₹10,000 per month, rejecting his advocate's request to appear by relying on Section 17 of the Senior Citizens Act, which prohibits legal representation. Justice Menezes highlighted:
“In all cases pending before the Maintenance Tribunals, where an Advocate puts in an appearance for any of the parties, he would have the right of audience and to plead… in terms of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”
Read Also:- Mortgage Breach Not Void If Lease Deed Specifies Consequences: Bombay High Court
The court noted that Section 30 grants every advocate the right to appear before any court or tribunal. Section 17 of the Senior Citizens Act, which bars legal practitioners, was declared ultra vires by multiple High Courts, including Kerala in Adv. K.G. Suresh v. Union of India. Justice Menezes observed:
“The effect of the judgment in Adv. K.G. Suresh's case would be that Section 17 stands struck down… which includes the State of Goa or any other State.”
The Court found the Maintenance Tribunal’s procedure flawed on several grounds:
- The tribunal did not conduct the necessary inquiry under Section 6(4).
- It failed to implead the applicant’s other children—three daughters—who are equally responsible for maintenance.
- The tribunal bypassed rules requiring reference to a Conciliation Officer before passing an order.
“These are not empty formalities, but are issues to be dealt with by the Tribunal under Section 6 of the Act, which Tribunal has totally failed to follow.”
Justice Menezes directed that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal in Mapusa. It must now:
- Include the three daughters as parties,
- Refer the case to a Conciliation Officer,
- Conduct a proper inquiry per the Act and Rules, and
- Allow representation by legal counsel.
Until the final decision, the son must continue paying ₹3,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Case Title: Santosh Savlaram Morajkar vs Sumitra Savlaram Moraskar
