Altaf Shaikh v. State of Goa, 2026

The petitioner, Altaf Shaikh, was employed in Dubai and had been regularly sending money to support his parents and family.

He had also purchased certain properties in the names of his parents as a mark of affection and respect.

Subsequently, disputes arose between the petitioner's wife and his parents.

The petitioner's wife instituted proceedings against his parents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Following the family dispute, the petitioner stopped providing financial support to his elderly parents.

The petitioner's 70-year-old father, who had suffered paralysis, became bedridden and required continuous medical care.

His 62-year-old mother, lacking financial resources to engage legal representation, appeared before the Court as a party-in-person.

Although another son contributed some money towards their maintenance, the amount was insufficient to meet their living and medical expenses.

Consequently, the parents approached the Competent Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking monthly maintenance.

The Competent Authority directed the petitioner to pay ₹8,000 per month towards the maintenance of his parents.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Competent Authority.

The Court held that disputes between the petitioner's wife and his parents do not absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to maintain his parents.

The Court observed that the petitioner's father was bedridden due to paralysis and required financial assistance for medical treatment and daily care.

The Court noted that the petitioner had previously been financially supporting his parents and had even purchased properties in their names, demonstrating his ability and willingness to maintain them before the family dispute.

The Court held that the petitioner's refusal to pay even a modest amount of ₹8,000 per month towards his parents' maintenance was unjustified.

The Court observed that the maintenance order was reasonable, considering the medical condition and financial needs of the elderly parents.

The Court concluded that the statutory obligation under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 continues irrespective of matrimonial or family disputes.

The judgment reinforces the welfare-oriented object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, namely to ensure financial security and dignity for elderly parents.

The Court rightly distinguished disputes within the family from the independent statutory duty of children to maintain their parents.

By refusing to treat matrimonial discord as a defence, the judgment prevents elderly parents from becoming indirect victims of disputes between spouses.

The decision highlights that maintenance under the Act is a legal obligation and not merely a moral responsibility.

The Court gave due weight to the humanitarian considerations arising from the father's advanced age, paralysis, and medical needs.

The ruling reflects a balanced approach by protecting vulnerable senior citizens without expressing any opinion on the merits of the domestic violence proceedings.

The judgment strengthens the enforceability of maintenance orders under the 2007 Act and discourages abandonment of elderly parents due to personal or matrimonial conflicts.

The decision serves as an important precedent affirming that children's statutory obligations toward parents cannot be defeated by private family disagreements.