Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Friday a petition seeking to quash the Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 for being ultra-vires the parent Act of 2007 and the Constitution dismissed by High Court.
Sunny Paul and Anr. V. State of NCT of Delhi which had held that Maintenance Tribunal can order eviction of children if they deliberately neglect parents. The court had held that the claim for maintenance is not a condition precedent for passing an eviction order under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao noted that section 22 of the Act empowers the state government to confer such powers and duties on a District Magistrate for compliance of the provisions of the Act and for which purpose the state government shall prescribe a comprehensive Action Plan for protecting the life and property of senior citizens.
Section 32 is the rule making power of the state government. "So, it is clear that the Act itself empowers the State Government to confer such powers and duties on District Magistrate for protection of life and property of the senior citizens", the High Court said.
Although the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure is both time consuming as well as expensive.
Therefore, the Act envisages the protection of life and property of the senior citizens. "The 'protection of property' must be understood to mean where a senior citizen retains the property in his name and possession for his welfare and well being", the court noted.
Act is to provide inexpensive and speedy protection of life and property of the senior citizens from the children / legal heirs, who are expected to maintain their parents but refuse or fail to provide basic amenities and other physical needs, which conduct shall amount to ill-treatment and non-maintenance and shall be a ground for parents to seek eviction of the children from the property, which is the only way for them to seek protection of their property so that they continue to have shelter over their head and sustain themselves independently, the bench headed by the Chief Justice has opined.
86540
103860
630
114
59824