1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of
and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. his petition impugns order dated 06.06.2023 passed by
the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (said Act). By the
impugned order the Tribunal has directed the petitioner/original
opponent no.2 - Dinesh Kantak in Maintenance Application
No.3/2020 to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance
to respondent nos.1 and 2 (his parents) and has been further
directed to vacate the suit house and make alternate arrangements
for his accommodation within six months of the passing of the
order.
3. he main contentions raised in this petition are as follows:-
(b) he impugned order has been passed contrary to the
scheme of the said Act, more speciically, contrary to the
provisions of Section 6 of the said Act and to Rule 4 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Goa Rules, 2009 (said Rules), since no inquiry has been
conducted by the Tribunal before passing the impugned
order.
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
(c) hat the impugned order has been passed without
following the procedure set out under sub-section (6) of
Section 6 r/w Section 5 of the Act which requires the
Tribunal to refer the parties to the Conciliation Oicer to
attempt in mediating a solution to the disputes between
them. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this
Court in Santosh Savlaram Morajkar v/s. Sumitra Savlaram
Moraskar & Anr. - Writ Petition No.219/2025 decided on
09.06.2025.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr A. Sardessai
has opposed the petition and supports the impugned order. It
was further submitted that the appeal iled by the petitioner
before the Collector, has been rejected. Hence the impugned
order does not call for interference. It is further submitted that
the order of the Collector considers the record in detail and has
varied the order of 06.06.2023 by directing both, the petitioner
and respondent no.3 who is the other son of respondents no.1
and 2, to each pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to
their parents. However, there is no interference recorded by the
Appellate Court to the directions in the impugned order to the
petitioner, directing him to vacate the suit house.
5. I have considered the record of the proceedings and the
submissions by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. he impugned order has been passed after hearing the
detailed arguments of the parties who appeared in person, as
recorded in the proceeding sheet of 06.06.2023. However, a
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
perusal of the entire proceeding sheet from the commencement of
the maintenance proceedings would reveal that there has been no
inquiry whatsoever conducted by the Deputy Collector/
Maintenance Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of
the Act r/w Rule 7 of the said Rules. hese provisions
contemplate that the Maintenance Tribunal should conduct an
inquiry into the rival submissions and material placed by the
parties on record. he provisions of Rule 7 even empower the
Tribunal to take evidence of the parties if it is so required.
7. he provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Act
require the Tribunal to, before hearing, under Section 5 of the
Act, to refer such an application to a Conciliation Oicer. he
Conciliation Oicer is deined in the Act as a person who may be
either speciically appointed by the Tribunal or the Maintenance
Oicer who is designated by the State Government under sub-
section (1) of Section 18 of the Act may also be appointed to
conduct mediation between the parties. his is a mandate of
Section 6 of the Act, which in the present case has not been
followed.
8. here is yet another aspect of the matter where perusal of
the record reveals that the petitioner had made an application
opposing the representation of the appellant by an advocate,
which appears to have been allowed, and the entire matter
proceeded on the basis that the provisions of Section 17 of the
Act were on the statute book. hus none of the parties to the
proceeding were represented by an advocate during the course of
the proceedings, on the premise that the Act prohibited
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
representation of the parties by an advocate. his Court in
Santosh Savlaram Morajkar (supra) has considered earlier
judgments passed by the Kerala High Court in Adv. K. G. Suresh
v/s. Union of India - v/s Union of India- 2021 SCC OnLine Ker
1686 decided on 30.03.2021 which has declared provisions of
Section 17 of the Act to be ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates
Act, 1961. In Santosh Savlaram Morajkar (supra), a further
judgment by the Delhi High Court in Taruna Saxena v/s. Union
of India & Ors. - 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2600 was also
considered, which has taken a similar view as the one taken by the
Kerala High Court. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v/s. Union of India &
Anr. - (2004) 6 SCC 254, this Court has, in Santosh Savlaram
Morajkar (supra), held that the provisions of Section 17 stand
struck down from the statute book. In view of these two
judgments, and consequently the proceedings before the
Maintenance Tribunal, without allowing representation of the
parties through advocates would be contrary to the scheme of the
Act and would be denying parties legal counsel. his would
vitiate all the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal, and
consequently the impugned order.
9. Given the fact that the impugned order was passed without
holding any inquiry or without referring the matter to
conciliation, where issues considered by this Court in Santosh
Savlaram Morajkar (supra) and the relevant paragraphs of that
judgment shall apply to the facts of the present case. he same
are quoted below:-
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
"8. Sub Section 4 of Section 6 requires that all evidence to
such proceedings be taken in the presence of the children or
the persons, who are by law required to maintain the
Applicant. Here again, in the present proceedings, it
appears that no evidence or any inquiry was conducted by
the Tribunal in the presence of the children, three of the
daughters having not even having been summoned. here
appears to have been a complete go by given to the
procedures laid down under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
9. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no reference
has been made on the conduct of the inquiry or to ascertain
the liability of each of the children to maintain the
Applicant, and on what basis the Tribunal concluded that
the maintenance required to be paid by the Applicant was
quantiied at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten housand only) or
for that matter, how the Tribunal concluded the
apportionment of such maintenance amount amongst the
children of the Applicant. hese are not empty formalities,
but are issues to be dealt with by the Tribunal under
Section 6 of the Act, which Tribunal has totally failed to
follow.
10. In terms of Section 32 of the Act read with Section 8
thereof, the Government of Goa has framed the Goa
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizen Rules,
2009, (herein after referred to as Rules). Rule 4 provides for
procedure for iling an application for maintenance. Rule 9
provides for impleadment of other children of the
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
Applicant, which can be exercised either at the behest of the
opposite party or by the Tribunal Suo Moto. Rule 10
provides for reference of such application to the
Conciliation Oicer. Under Rule 10, it is the duty of the
Tribunal to seek the opinion of the parties before it, as to
whether they desire the matter to be referred to the
Conciliation Oicer, and if they express their willingness,
he shall refer the matter to the Conciliation Oicer for
attempting to work out a settlement. Sub Section 6 of
Section 6 enjoins the Tribunal, before hearing any
application under Section 5 to refer the application to the
Conciliation Oicer, the Conciliation Oicer being deined
under the explanation to Section 6. he Tribunal may refer
the matter to the Conciliation Oicer speciically appointed
for that purpose in terms of Sub Section 1 of Section 5 of
the Act or to the Maintenance Oicer designated by the
State Government under Sub Section 1 of Section 18 or on
its own motion, refer the matter to the Conciliator to be
appointed by the Tribunal.
11. he record does not disclose any such attempt on the
part of the Tribunal to facilitate conciliation among the
parties before passing of the impugned order. here appears
to have been a complete go by given to the procedures laid
down under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act read with
provisions of Rules which are referred above. he impugned
order, as noted by me in the preceding paragraphs, is devoid
of any reasoning recorded therein, nor does it state how it
has arrived at the conclusion that it was only the Petitioner,
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
who was responsible to pay the entire maintenance; the
Petitioner is one of the four children who is responsible or
as to how it has arrived at the quantum of maintenance. On
this count alone, the impugned order would have to be set
aside."
10. Consequently, and for the reasons referred to above, the
impugned order dated 06.06.2023 cannot be sustained and is
hereby quashed and set aside. he provisions of Section 16 of the
Act do not provide for any appeal at the behest of the opponent
but provides an appeal only to the aggrieved senior citizens or
parents. In the present case the appeal itself before the Collector
was not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner and for that
reason the order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction
and need not be looked into for the fact that the appeal itself
ought to be rejected as not maintainable. Consequently, the
appellate order dated 20.05.2024 stands quashed and set aside.
11. Considering that the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 is
set aside, the matter shall stand remanded back to the
Maintenance Tribunal at Panaji. he parties shall appear before
the Tribunal on 22.09.2025 at 3.00 p.m. After the parties appear,
and the Tribunal notiies all other parties who are required to be
heard, including respondent no.3, the Tribunal shall refer the case
to a Conciliation Oicer to be appointed by it for that purpose or
the Maintenance Oicer appointed by the Government of Goa
under the provisions of the Act. he Conciliation Oicer or the
Maintenance Oicer as appointed by the Tribunal shall attempt
to mediate a settlement amongst the parties and submit a report
13th August 2025
15-WP-811-24.DOC
on the conciliation within eight weeks of the commencement of
the conciliation proceedings. If the conciliation fails, the
Maintenance Tribunal shall proceed to conduct an inquiry into
the matter, and if necessary record evidence in a summary
manner, and shall thereafter pass its order. Considering that these
matters require to be completed within a time-bound manner, the
Maintenance Tribunal shall endeavour to pass its order by
14.11.2025.
12. It is made clear, that in the interregnum and during the
pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the petitioner and
respondent no.3 shall each deposit into the account of
respondents no.1 and 2 an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month
until the disposal of the maintenance application. he account
number has been speciied in the irst order of the Deputy
Collector dated 08.09.2021.
13. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b)
of the petition with the directions mentioned in the above
paragraphs.
14. he Petition is disposed of. No cost.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
13th August 2025
