The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, against alleged obstruction by his neighbors in constructing a gate on his property.
The Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that in terms of Section 5 of the Act 2007, an application for maintenance under Section 4 may be made by a senior citizen or a parent, or, if he is incapable by any other person or organization authorized by him. The application is to be made before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7. The Tribunal may also take cognizance suo motu.
The petitioner urged the court to issue directions to local authorities, particularly respondent no.2 (a state functionary), to ensure the protection of his life and property, invoking Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.
The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, alleged that his neighbors (private respondents 2 to 5) were obstructing the construction of a gate on his private property and were also issuing threats.
However, the court held that the dispute did not fall under the scope of the 2007 Act. “This is not a situation where petitioner requires discharge of duty by the administrative authority under Rule 21, to come to his aid,” observed the bench. The judges emphasized that while the Act is a welfare legislation aimed at providing maintenance and care to the elderly, it does not extend to adjudicating private property disputes involving third parties.
The court clarified that Sections 20 and 21 of the Act—related to medical support and welfare awareness—were not applicable in the present context. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner, the court noted, would be to approach the civil courts for resolution of the property dispute.
Stressing the limited jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal under the 2007 Act, the bench stated, “There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties.”
Dismissing the writ petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies available under the general law. “The dismissal will not prevent him from finding his remedy as may be available in law,” the order concluded.
Case Details
Case Title: Ishak Versus State of U.P.
Case No.: WRIT – C No. – 18408 of 2025
Date: 16.7.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Akhilesh Kumar Singh
Counsel For Respondent: C.S.C.
Read More: Dry Dates Smuggling Case: Court Grants Bail to Importer After Month-Long Custody
