2014 PLRonline 0215
punjab and haryana HIGH COURT
Before: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ and Justice Arun Palli.
Paramjit Kumar Saroya – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and another – Respondents
CWP No. 7282 of 2010 (O&M).
28.5.2014.
maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 4(4) – The act, starting from Section 4, outlines the responsibility of children or relatives to support senior citizens – This obligation includes ensuring that senior citizens can lead a normal life – The law recognizes that while the younger generation often inherits property from their parents, there is sometimes a reluctance to provide for them during their lifetime – With increased longevity, this issue becomes more pronounced, as some may not want to wait to inherit but rather seek immediate possession of their parents' property, neglecting their duty to care for them – Mandates that anyone possessing or set to inherit a senior citizen's property must maintain them – If multiple relatives are entitled to the inheritance, the responsibility for maintenance is shared proportionally to their inheritance share. [Para 6
Interpretation of statutes – Casus omissus – Primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself – Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid and that words are required to be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them – A casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when the reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself – The objective is to put a construction on a particular provision so that it makes consistent enactment of the whole statute – A literal construction should not be adopted if it leads to a manifestly absurd or anomalous result which could not have been intended by the Legislature – It cannot be “an intention to produce an un-reasonable result” – It is this very result, in our opinion, which would flow if we adopt an interpretation restricting right of appeal to only one of the parties under Section 16(1) of the said Act – We would in fact have to strike down the provision and there is no reason to do so keeping in mind the intent of the Act if a casus omissus can save the provision. [Para 27]
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Sections 15, 16 and 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Sections 23, 15 and 16 – Not to provide right of appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act to affected persons is only an accidental legal omission – Section 16(1) of the Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties – 2009 (7) SCC 1 Relied. [Paras 22, 25, 27, 33 and 34]
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 23 – Senior citizen thrown out from house by son – Respondent having more than one sons – But he can claim maintenance from son and grandson who had ousted him. [Para 50 – 53]
Cases Referred :-
