Whether a person who is not an Indian citizen can file petition under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?

The passport of respondent No.2 is produced at Annexure-B. It shows that respondent No.2–Carobina Ferrao Guerin is a British citizen. Her photograph is also affixed to the passport. It is therefore evident that she is not an Indian citizen as the Constitution of India does not provide for dual citizenship. Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Senior Citizen’ and it

reads as follows:

“h. "senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above;”

4. It is evident that one of the essential elements

for being designated a ‘Senior Citizen’ for the purposes of

the Act is the person being an Indian citizen. The passport

at Annexure-B clearly shows that respondent No.2 at whose

instance proceedings has been initiated by the respondent

No.1, is not an Indian citizen. In that view of the matter,

respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate the

proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, same is liable to

be quashed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

 MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO Vs ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION,

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

DATED: 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

The short point calling for consideration in this writ

petition is whether a person who is not an Indian citizen

can maintain a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate

under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’)

and at the instance of such person whether the Sub

Divisional Magistrate can initiate proceedings?

2. The petitioners have approached this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of

the entire proceedings in JA.J¸ï.¹¹Dgï.103/15-16 (Annexure-

A).

3. The impugned proceedings has been initiated

by the respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2

against the petitioners herein. The passport of respondent

No.2 is produced at Annexure-B. It shows that respondent

No.2–Carobina Ferrao Guerin is a British citizen. Her

photograph is also affixed to the passport. It is therefore

evident that she is not an Indian citizen as the Constitution

of India does not provide for dual citizenship. Sub-section

(h) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Senior Citizen’ and it

reads as follows:

“h. "senior citizen" means any

person being a citizen of India, who has

attained the age of sixty years or above;”

4. It is evident that one of the essential elements

for being designated a ‘Senior Citizen’ for the purposes of

the Act is the person being an Indian citizen. The passport

at Annexure-B clearly shows that respondent No.2 at whose

instance proceedings has been initiated by the respondent

No.1, is not an Indian citizen. In that view of the matter,

respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate the

proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, same is liable to

be quashed.

5. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued against

the entire proceedings in JA.J¸ï.¹¹Dgï.103/15-16 (Annexure-

A) and same is quashed. Writ Petition is allowed and rulenisi

issued is made absolute.

Print Page