The Karnataka High Court has recommended that the Union Government revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, observing that the statutory ceiling of ₹10,000 per month for maintenance is “petrified in time” and out of step with present-day costs.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the cap no longer reflects economic realities and should be aligned with inflation. “The Union [must] revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age,” the court noted, stressing that a nation’s worth is measured by how it treats its children and elderly.
What the Court Held
- Cap outdated: Referring to government inflation data, the court noted that what ₹100 could buy in 2007 now costs nearly ₹1,000 in 2025, while the ₹10,000 limit has remained unchanged.
- Interim relief enhanced: Pending reconsideration, the Court temporarily enhanced maintenance to ₹30,000 per parent per month.
- Tribunal’s powers clarified: Setting aside an Assistant Commissioner’s direction awarding ₹5 lakh lump-sum “compensation”, the Court held that tribunals cannot grant lump-sum compensation under the Act/Rules and are confined to monthly maintenance orders.
- Directions to pay arrears: The petitioners were directed to pay ₹10,000 per month each to their parents from April 2021 until the tribunal reconsiders the matter.
- Centre’s attention sought: The Registrar has been directed to forward the order to the Additional Solicitor General of India to ensure the recommendation reaches the Ministry of Finance, urging Parliament to re-examine the ceiling.
The Court warned that keeping the cap static erodes the Act’s protective purpose: “Maintenance cannot remain a mirage shimmering in the desert of inflation… Relief that is illusory is no relief at all.” Although Parliament passed amendments in 2019, the Section 9(2) ceiling was not revised; a proposal to remove the cap and allow need-based maintenance was never enacted. The Court also clarified that because the ceiling is set in central law, states cannot issue rules authorising amounts beyond ₹10,000.
The observations came while hearing a plea by Sunil H Bohra & Ors. challenging an order that directed a ₹5 lakh lump-sum payment to their parents. The High Court set aside that order, remitted the case to the tribunal, fixed interim monthly maintenance, and issued its recommendation to the Centre on revising the statutory cap.
