Only Senior Citizens Or A Parent Can File An Appeal Under Section 16(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court while throwing light on the wisdom of the Legislature for incorporating the right of appeal to a particular class of person in a statutory provision has observed that u/s 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 only senior citizens or a parent can file an appeal.

“The words used in the provision are lucid and, by no stretch of imagination, can such clear words of the statute be read or understood or interpreted to imply that any class of persons other than any senior citizen or a parent may be entitled to prefer an appeal under such provision.”, Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee & Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted. 

In the present matter, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that any aggrieved party to an order passed under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (“Act”) could  file an Appeal under Sec.16(1) of the said Act by placing reliance on the judgement dated 29.06.2015 passed in Balbir Kaur v. Presiding Officer-cum-SDM of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa District, Kurukshetra and others 

Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 reads as follows:

“16. Appeals.- (1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.”

In this context, the Bench remarked that no right of an appeal which is a creature of a statute can inher in any person unless such right is expressly conferred by any statute. It is possible for a right of appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. 

“It is the wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be exercised”, the Court noted. 

Thus, while disposing of the petition, the Bench observed that, 

“When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favour of a class of persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision. When the words used in Section 16 of the Act are “Any senior citizen or a parent ... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal...” and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides.”

Case Title: K Raju v. Union of India 

Law Point/Statute Involved: Section 16(1) of the The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007