IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

WPA No. 24343 of 2024

Kusal Roy

Versus

State of West Bengal and Others

Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Pubali Sinha Chowdhury

Mr. Shwetank Ginodia

Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee

Ms. Sirin Firdous

Ms. Mini Agarwal

.....For the petitioner.

Mrs. Gita Roy

.....Respondent no. 3 in person.

Mr. Asish Kumar Roy

.....Respondent no. 4 in person.

Hearing Concluded On : 11.06.2026

Judgment On : 25.06.2026

Uploaded On : 25.06.2026

2

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the

impugned orders passed by the Learned District Magistrate, South 24

Parganas, dated 7

th June, 2024 and 10

th June, 2024, in Appeal No. 13

of 2024, under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007.

2. By an order dated 10

th

June, 2024, the District Magistrate, South 24

Parganas being the Appellate Authority under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, passed the impugned

order directing the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.

10,000/- to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 from the month of July, 2024.

3. Mr. Krishna Raj Thaker, Learned Senior Advocate representing the

petitioner submits that the impugned orders are in contraventions of

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

and is beyond his jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Thaker submits that in the year 2019, the respondent nos. 3 and 4

being the mother and father of the petitioner, have filed a complaint

before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, under

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

and the Sub-Divisional Officer, by an order dated 7

th

February, 2019,

passed an order directing the petitioner to provide basic amenities for

his mother and father i.e. medical treatment and also directed for

keeping a close liaison with his parents time to time.

3

5. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has preferred an

appeal being Appeal No. 02/RM/2019. By an order dated 22

nd

December, 2020, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by

the petitioner and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer

Baruipur, South 24 Parganas was confirmed. The petitioner has

preferred a writ application before this Court being WPA No. 21645 of

2023 (Kusal Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and this Court by an

order dated 5

th

December, 2023, set aside the orders passed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Appellate Authority and given

liberty to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to make fresh application before

the concern Sub-Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and if any, application is filed

by the respondent nos. 3 & 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to

decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the

parties.

6. As per the liberty granted by this Court, the private respondents have

filed an application under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer.

On 28

th

March, 2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the said

application.

7. Being aggrieved with the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the District

Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, being Appeal No. 13 of 2024. The

4

Appellate Authority has disposed of the said appeal by passing the

impugned order.

8. Mr. Thaker submits that it is admitted by the respondent nos. 3 and 4

that they are having substantial properties, income and savings inspite

of the admission, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned

order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent

nos. 3 and 4 as monthly maintenance.

9. Mr. Thaker submits that by a registered deed dated 30

th

January,

2019, the petitioner has relinquished his right to inheritance of the

properties of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. He further submits that the

petitioner is maintaining the Health Insurance Policies for his parents

which is separately paid and linked to the petitioner’s Health Insurance

Policy with his employers. He further submits that without prejudiced

to his rights and contentions, the petitioner in compliance of the order

passed by the Appellate Authority is remitting the amount of Rs.

10,000/- to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 every month.

10. Mr. Thaker submits that sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the Maintenance

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the maximum

amount of Rs. 10,000/- is permissible but the Court cannot direct the

physical presence of the petitioner.

11. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 being the mother and father of the

petitioner appeared in person, and submits that the petitioner is the

only son of the respondent nos. 3 & 4. The respondent no.3 submits

5

that through their dedication, efforts and professional sacrifices raised

the petitioner to be highly educated at St. Xavier’s School Kolkata, IIT

Kharagpur and IIM Ahmedabad.

12. The respondent no. 3, namely, Dr. Gita Roy aged aged about 79 years

submits that she is an acute cardiac patient who underwent double

PTCA in 2004 and 2021 respectively, with several stents implanted in

her heart. She is also suffering from very painful arthritis. To

compound her worsening health conditions, she has recently been

diagnosed with an enlarged cyst in her right ovary, which may lead to a

high risk surgery to avoid malignancy.

13. She further submits that her husband, namely, Dr. Asish Kumar Roy

aged about 81 years, has been suffering from life-threatening

Adenocarcinoma Prostate since the end of 2023 and is presently

undergoing intensive treatment. He is also suffering from Chronic

Kidney Disease (CKD) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

(COPD). In view of these grave medical conditions, it is absolutely

impossible for her husband to shoulder the responsibility of her

complicated and high risk open abdomen surgery.

14. She further submits that her son has blocked their mobile numbers

and e-mail ID’s over the years. They made repeated attempts to convey

to him the seriousness of her medical condition, first through their

grandson, Neel Roy, now who is studying in USA, and later through the

petitioner’s lawyer at Kolkata. However, due to parental strictures, Neel

6

Roy unable to correspond with them via e-mail, while petitioner’s

lawyer has informed them through e-mail that the petitioner does not

wish to be contacted by his parents.

15. She further submits that the petitioner has not visited his parental

residence at Sonarpur for the past 13 years and failed to take his

responsibilities towards his old aged and seriously ailing parents.

16. She further submits that Neel Roy, aged about 24 years, the only son of

the petitioner and their only grandson, is currently a Research

Associate at Stanford University, USA. He is highly adorable to them

and was very attached to them. He visited their Sonarpur residence

only once in 2012 and enjoyed his short stays for a few hours with

them. Over the last several years, they have not been allowed to keep

contact with him or to be a part of the life of their most adorable

grandson by his parents, particularly by his mother, who has denied

them Neel’s overseas address and personal contact number.

17. She further submits that due to their old age and ailments, they are

unable to take proper care of themselves by periodical medical check-

ups. She submits that it is their wish that their son comes and stays

for a few days with them at Sonarpur.

18. She further submits that at this stage of their life and being afflicted

several life threatening diseases, they are too exhausted and are not

intending to continue with their legal battle. They only want that at

their old age, their son to be with them.

7

19. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 being the mother and father of the

petitioner have filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer

under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007, praying for an order that their son must visit them,

call them and take care of them as a son does under normal

circumstances. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 had also prayed for an

order for Rs. 5,000/- each per month for their medical treatment.

20. After hearing the parties in person, this Court constituted a Committee

consisting of Dr. Amit Kumar Bhattacharyya, Director and HoD,

Department of Psychiatry, IPGME&R, Dr. Bidita Bhattacharya,

Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Psychology, IOP-COE, Mr.

Mayank Kumar, Assistant Professor and HoD, Department of

Psychiatric Social Work, IOP-COE and Ms. Chandrima Sinha, Family

Counselor to conduct counselling of the petitioner and the respondent

nos. 3 and 4.

21. The Committee after counselling the petitioner and respondent nos. 3

and 4 submitted report which reads as follows:

“Report of the Committee

A committee was formed with the following

members as per order of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta

dated, 10/03/2026 and communication of ADHS Mental

Health, Govt. of West Bengal, Dept. of H&FW, vide memo

no. MH/A-1148 Dated, 16/03/2026.

Members of the committee appointed by the Hon’ble

High Court:

1. Prof. Dr. Amit Kumar Bhattacharyya, Prof. & HOD,

Dept of Psychiatry, IPGME&R

8

2. Dr. Bidita Bhattacharya, Asso. Prof. & HOD, Dept. of

Clinical Psychology, IOP-COE

3. Dr. Mayank Kumar, Asst. Prof. & HOD, Dep of

Psychiatric Social Work, IOP-COE

4. Ms. Chandrima Sinha, Family Counselor

Case Ref No: WPA No. 24343 of 2024

Venue of sessions: Institute of Psychiatry – COE 7, D.L. Khan

Road, Kolkata – 25

Subject: Clinical Report on Psychotherapeutic Intervention

Pursuant to the order dated, 10/03/2026 by the Hon’ble

Court and communication of ADHS Mental Health, Govt. of

West Bengal, the undersigned has conducted a clinical

evaluation, counselling and psychotherapeutic sessions for the

following participants:

 Name of Mother : Smt. Gita Roy

(dr.gitaroy@gmail.com)

 Name of Father: Sri Asish Roy

(roy.asish2009@gmail.com)

 Name of Son: Sri Kushal Roy

(kushalroy70@gmail.com)

Psychotherapeutic & Counselling Sessions (1

st April,

2026 & 11

th April, 2026)

The assessment and intervention were carried out over two

intensive sessions. The following clinical modalities were

utilized:

 Individual Clinical Interviews: Separate sessions

were conducted with the parents and son to ensure

“safe space” for the disclosures of concerns without

immediate confrontation.

 Conjoined Sessions: Attempted therapeutic

conversations to identify common ground.

 Counseling and Psychotherapeutic Intervention:

Focused on interpersonal relationship issues, conflict

resolution strategies, and empathy building.

During the sessions, both parents and son were given an

exhaustive hearing to place their respective points of view,

9

expectations, and concerns. The observations of the

committee members are:

A. Perspective of Elderly Parents:

The parents expressed and reported specific

expectations regarding care, and familial involvement.

B. Perspective of the Son:

The son presented his viewpoint, highlighting his own

opinion about parental expectations.

Therapeutic Outcome:

Despite active psychotherapeutic intervention and attempts to

solve the interpersonal problems with mutual understanding:

 All three of them exhibited significantly

entrenched positions. There was a marked refusal

to validate the other’s perspective or lived

experience.

 The attempt to reach middle ground on future

living/interaction arrangements did not seem to

work.

 Each side considered the expectations sent by the

other to be difficult to accept. All three of them

found it challenging to accept the expectations

stated by the other.”

22. On 28

th March, 2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur, South 24

Parganas, has passed the following order:

“The undersigned being the Prescribed

Authority of Maintenance Tribunal under

Section 7 Sub-section 2 of Maintenance and

Welfare of Parent and Senior Citizens Act

2007, hereby rejects the prayer of the present

petitioners under the due process of Law after

considering all the submitted documents and after

affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to

all the interest parties.”

23. The Appellate Authority has passed the following order:

10

“Considering the submissions made by all the

parties and after considering all relevant

documents in this case and relevant provisions of

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007, being the District Magistrate,

South 24-Parganas, I am of the opinion that the

appellants are financially sound but considering

the present circumstances of the appellants and

their advancing age accompanied with the

ailments, the monthly pension of the appellants

may not be sufficient for the treatment of disease of

the appellants. In view of the above, the opposite

party i.e. Mr. Kusal Roy is hereby directed to pay

the monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten

Thousand) only in favour of the appellants.

Maintenance shall be paid starting from the month

of July 2024 and shall be paid subsequently by the

opposite party to the appellants by 5th day of every

month.

The other prayers of the appellants viz.

regular visits by the opposite party, stay at his

parental house and inclusion of the appellants in

the insurance policy of the applicant are beyond

the purview of this appellant tribunal and thus not

considered.

The order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal Sub-Divisional Office,

Baruipur, South 24-Parganasis hereby set aside.

The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby

considered and allowed with the above-mentioned

relief.”

24. The respondent no. 3 is a retired Associate Professor of Department of

History and the respondent no. 4 is a retired Professor of Political

Science and getting their monthly pensions. The respondent no.3 is

also having double storied building. The petitioner has already executed

a registered deed, relinquished his right to inheritance of the properties

of his parents.

11

25. Section 4 of the Act provides that the senior citizen including parent

who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the

property owned by him can make an application for maintenance. In

the previous round of litigation, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed

the petitioner to visit his parental house at least once in a month to

look after them properly and also directed the petitioner to remain

present during his father’s eye operation as per scheduled date. The

said order was affirmed by the appellate authority.

26. This Court by an order dated 5

th

December, 2023, set aside the order

holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the order de hors

the power.

27. After the order passed by this Court, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have

made detailed complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer praying for a

direction upon the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical

expenses of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and to maintain regular

contacts with his parents.

28. In paragraphs 5 and para 16 of the complaint, it is stated that :

“5. Without any financial help from her

husband purchased a flat at Lake Town and later

built a two-storied house on a two-and-a-half

cottah plot (17A) with garden at Ramakrishna

Pally, Sonarpur by taking loan and with her own

salary at the request of her husband, Prof. Dr.

Asish Kumar Roy, who has built a one-room flat

with a store room and garden on a two-and-a-half

cottah plot (17B) from his own salary and savings.

12

16. Prof. Dr. Gita Roy has a two-storied house

with a mezzanine floor and a garden on a two and

a half cotta plot (17A) at Ramakrishna Pally,

Sonarpur, built exclusively with her income and

Prof. Dr. Asish Kumar Roy has built a one-room flat

with a store room on a two and a half cottah plot

(17B) at the same address.”

29. The respondents have also admitted while filing their details before the

Sub-Divisional Officer that they owns about 148 term deposits at the

local banks and they are also receiving their periodical interests from

the said terms deposits. It is also admitted that they have also

purchased car.

30. The petitioner has disclosed documents wherein it reveals that the

petitioner has paid medical expenses when the respondent nos. 3 and 4

were treated at Hindustan Health Point Pvt. Ltd. and Woodland

Multispecialty Hospital through the insurance policies maintained by

the petitioner. The petitioner is also maintaining insurance policy for

his parents which is linked with the petitioner’s health insurance policy

with his employer.

31. At the time of hearing of the present case, the only contentions of the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner should come and meet the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 every interval. This Court directed the

petitioner either to appear before this Court in person or through

virtual mode. The petitioner appeared through virtual mode and

submits that due to the alleged acts of the respondent nos. 3 and 4

though being the mother and father is apprehending danger to come to

13

meet the parents as they have lodged several complaints against the

petitioner at Kolkata as well as in Mumbai and time and again, the

petitioner is receiving calls from the police authorities either from

Kolkata or from Mumbai. All the complaints lodged by the respondent

nos. 3 and 4 are disclosed in the present writ application.

32. The petitioner informed this Court that his parents are having sufficient

income for their livelihood and the petitioner is maintaining insurance

policy which covers his parent and he will bear the medical expenses of

his parents.

33. In the complaint filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the grievance of

the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was for a direction upon the petitioner to

maintain contact with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 but the Sub-

Divisional Officer has rejected the complaint of the respondent nos. 3

and 4. The appellate authority has directed the petitioner to monthly

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- from the month of July, 2024. The

appellate authority has considered the findings of the Sub-Divisional

Officer wherein it was held that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are

financially sound enough and not eligible for maintenance under the

Act, but without considering the prayer made in the complaint and

without assigning any reasons had passed the impugned order.

34. Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007, reads as follows:

14

“4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior

Citizens.-(1) A senior citizen including parent who

is unable to maintain himself from his own earning

or out of the property owned by him, shall be

entitled to make an application under section 5 in

case of –

i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more

of his children not being a minor;

ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of

his relative referred to in clause (g) of

section 2.

(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as

the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen

extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior

citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain

his or her parent extends to the needs of such

parent either father or mother or both, as the case

may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior

citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain

such senior citizen provided he is in possession of

the property of such senior citizen or he would

inherit the property of such senior citizen: Provided

that where more than one relatives are entitled to

inherit the property of a senior citizen, the

maintenance shall be payable by such relative in

the proportion in which they would inherit his

property.

5. Application for maintenance

1. An application for maintenance under

section 4, may be made –

a. by a senior citizen or a parent, as the

case may be; or

b. if he is incapable, by any other person

or organisation authorised by him; or

1.

c. the Tribunal may take cognizance sua motu

Explanation: For the purposes of this section

"organisation" means any voluntary association

15

registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860, or any other law for the time being in force.

2. The Tribunal may, during the pendency of

the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the

maintenance under this section, order such

children or relative to make a monthly allowance

for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen

including parent and to pay the same to such

senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may

from time to time direct.

3. On receipt of an application for maintenance

under sub-section (1), after giving notice of the

application to the children or relative and after

giving the parties an opportunity of being heard,

hold an inquiry for determining the amount of

maintenance

4. An application filed under sub-section (2) for

the monthly allowance for the maintenance and

expenses for proceeding shall be disposed of within

ninety days from the date of the service of notice of

the application to such person:

Provided that the Tribunal may extend

the said period, once for a maximum period of

thirty days in exceptional circumstances for

reasons to be recorded in writing.

5. An application for maintenance under sub-

section (1) may be filed against one or more

persons:

Provided that such children or relative

may implead the other person liable to

maintain parent in the application for

maintenance.

6. Where a maintenance order was made

against more than one person, the death of one of

them does not affect the liability of others to

continue paying maintenance.

7. Any such allowance for the maintenance

and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from

the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the

date of the application for maintenance or expenses

of proceeding, as the case may be.

16

8. If, children or relative so ordered fail,

without sufficient cause to comply with the order,

any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the

order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due

in the manner provided for levying fines, and may

sentence such person for the whole, or any part of

each month's allowance for the maintenance and

expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,

remaining unpaid after the execution of the

warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may

extend to one month or until payment if sooner

made whichever is earlier:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued

for the recovery of any amount due under this

section unless application be made to the

Tribunal to levy such amount within a period

of three months from the date on which it

became due.

9. Order for maintenance.-(1) If children or

relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to

maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain

himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of

such neglect or refusal, order such children or

relatives to make a monthly allowance at such

monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior

citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the

same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may,

from time to time, direct.

(2)The maximum maintenance allowance

which may be ordered by such Tribunal shall be

such as may be prescribed by the State

Government which shall not exceed ten thousand

rupees per month.”

35. As per Section 4(1) if a senior citizen including parent unable to

maintain from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, is

entitled to make an application under Section 5 of the Act. Under sub-

section 2 of Section 4, it is the obligation of the children or relative to

maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that

senior may lead normal life. Under sub-section 3 of Section 4, it is the

17

obligation of the children to maintain their parent extends to needs of

such parent to lead normal life.

36. Section 5 provides for application for maintenance. As per Sub-Section

1(a) and (b) of Section 5, application for maintenance may be made by

senior citizen or a parent by himself or through someone authorized by

him. The Tribunal may take cognizance of a situation suo motu. The

Tribunal may pass an order for grant of monthly maintenance

allowance of the senior citizen or parent.

37. As per Section 9, the maintenance allowance shall not exceed ten

thousand rupees.

38. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the respondent nos. 3 and

4 that they are the retired government servants and are getting monthly

family pension. They are having two storied residential building, having

their own car and also having 148 term deposits with different banks

and also having substantial savings.

39. The only grievance of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is that the petitioner

being their only son should regularly contact with them over phone and

to visit their residence at Ramakrishna Pally, Sonarpur, time to time

and to stay with them for some days and to take adequate care of their

health. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate

Authority wherein the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 from the month of July, 2024, on the ground

that it is not the case of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that they are

18

unable to maintain themselves. The Appellate Authority has not

considered the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007 in its

true spirit and the admission made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that

they are having sufficient means.

40. Though the petitioner has challenged the order but at the time of

hearing on instructions submits that the petitioner will pay Rs.

10,000/- per month to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. The respondent

nos. 3 and 4 submits that they are having sufficient income, they did

not require any amount from the petitioner but the petitioner should

contact with them over phone and to visit their residence time to time

and to stay with them for some days and to take adequate care of their

health.

41. Considering the above, this Court finds that it is admitted by the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 that they are able to maintain themselves and

having sufficient means, thus the orders passed by the Appellate

Authority dated 7

th June, 2024, and 10

th June, 2024, are set aside and

quashed. The order passed by the Tribunal is affirmed. As regard to the

prayer made by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the same cannot be

granted to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as the same is not within the

purview of the provisions of Act of 2007.

However, the petitioner being the son of the respondent nos. 3

and 4, admitted that he is maintaining the Health Policies for his

parents which is linked to the petitioner’s Health Insurance Policy

19

with his employer, and is having moral duty to take care of his old age

parents, thus the petitioner is directed to see that the respondent nos.

3 and 4 shall get proper treatment for their healthy life.

42. WPA No. 24343 of 2024 is disposed of.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)