In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, does not have the authority to decide property ownership disputes, particularly those involving third parties. The bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava emphasized that such disputes must be resolved by civil courts.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a senior citizen, approached the court seeking protection for his life and property under Rule 21 of the UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. He alleged that private respondents were obstructing him from constructing a gate on his property and had issued threats. The petitioner argued that the Senior Citizens Act and its accompanying rules protect senior citizens not only from family members but also from third parties.
Read also:- Courts Overburdened: Delhi HC Asks Gokhale and Puri to Resolve Defamation Case Outside Court
The court examined the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and noted that the legislation was enacted to address the challenges faced by elderly individuals due to the decline of joint family systems in India. The Act aims to ensure their maintenance and welfare, particularly when they are neglected or lack financial and physical support.
Key Provisions Discussed:
Section 4: Entitles senior citizens, including parents unable to support themselves, to claim maintenance from their children or relatives who stand to inherit their property.
Section 5: Allows senior citizens or their authorized representatives to file maintenance applications before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7.
Read also:- Calcutta HC Replaces Death Penalty with 60-Year Jail Term in Minor’s Rape-Murder Case
However, the court clarified that the Act does not empower the tribunal to adjudicate property disputes, especially those involving third parties.
The bench stated:
“The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction.”
Read also:- Second Quashing Petition Under S.482 CrPC Not Maintainable Without New Grounds: Supreme Court Ruling
The court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance about obstruction by neighbors in constructing a gate did not fall within the purview of the Senior Citizens Act. Since no legal right under the Act was infringed, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies available under the law.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that while the Senior Citizens Act provides robust mechanisms for ensuring maintenance and welfare, it does not extend to resolving property disputes. Senior citizens facing such issues must approach civil courts for redressal. The ruling reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries between maintenance tribunals and civil courts, ensuring clarity for future cases.
Case Title: Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others [WRIT - C No. - 18408 of 2025]