Maintenance litigation is usually discussed as a dispute between spouses, but two statutory routes exist specifically for parents unable to maintain themselves. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 125 CrPC — allows a parent to claim monthly maintenance from children with sufficient means. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 adds a faster, Tribunal-based remedy with teeth of its own, including the power to void property transfers made on the unfulfilled promise of care. This explainer compares the two as they operate in Delhi.
Route one: Section 144 BNSS
Section 144 BNSS re-enacts the familiar architecture of Section 125 CrPC. The parent must show inability to maintain himself or herself; the child must have sufficient means and have neglected or refused to maintain; and the order is a monthly allowance from the date of the order or, where justified, from the date of the application. Interim maintenance is available during the proceedings. Enforcement follows the maintenance-execution machinery, including warrants for levy and, on persistent default, imprisonment for up to a month per unpaid month.
In Delhi, applications by parents are ordinarily filed before the Family Courts. The proceedings are summary in nature — designed to prevent destitution, not to settle accounts — and the standard of proof reflects that social purpose. Daughters as much as sons can be directed to pay; means, not gender, is the test.
Route two: the 2007 Act Tribunal
The Senior Citizens Act was enacted because court proceedings, even summary ones, move slowly for an eighty-year-old claimant. Its Tribunals — constituted at the sub-divisional level, presided over in Delhi by SDMs — follow a ninety-day disposal norm, can proceed summarily, and can order monthly maintenance up to the prescribed ceiling. Conciliation is attempted first; legal practitioners have a limited role by design under Section 17.
Section 144 BNSS
Judicial forum · no statutory ceiling · interim relief available · enforcement by warrant and detention · appeal/revision within the criminal-court hierarchy.
Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Tribunal forum · 90-day norm · ceiling as prescribed (up to ₹10,000/month) · Section 23 power to void conditional property transfers · appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 23: the property lever
The most consequential provision of the 2007 Act is not the maintenance award but Section 23. Where a senior citizen has transferred property — typically to a child, by gift or settlement — on the express or implied condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer may be declared void at the senior citizen's option, as if made by fraud, coercion or undue influence. The Tribunal machinery thus reaches the very transaction that left the parent dependent, a remedy no maintenance court can grant.
Documents that carry a Tribunal petition: proof of age and relationship; the gift or settlement deed, if Section 23 is invoked; medical and expense records establishing need; details of the children's or relatives' means; and any correspondence showing neglect or the promise of care.
Choosing — or combining — the routes
The remedies are cumulative, not exclusive, though the same need cannot be compensated twice. A parent needing substantial monthly support from a well-placed child may prefer Section 144 BNSS, which has no ceiling. A parent needing speed, protection of their home, or reversal of a conditional gift will find the Tribunal route more effective. In practice, many Delhi matters begin before the Tribunal for urgency and property protection, with a Section 144 BNSS claim following where the ceiling proves inadequate.
For children facing claims, the defences track the statutory ingredients: the parent's own means, the claimant's conduct being legally irrelevant except where the statute makes it so, apportionment among siblings, and — under Section 23 — the absence of any condition of maintenance attached to the transfer. Tribunal orders are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal within the statutory period, and thereafter face the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can claim under Section 144 BNSS?
A father or mother, unable to maintain herself or himself, may claim monthly maintenance from any child having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them. The provision is gender-neutral as to the claimant parent and the paying child, and adoptive parents are covered. Inability to maintain oneself is the threshold condition.
What extra powers does the Senior Citizens Act give?
The 2007 Act creates Maintenance Tribunals with a ninety-day disposal norm, allows childless senior citizens to claim from relatives who would inherit their property, and — under Section 23 — permits the Tribunal to declare void a transfer of property made on condition of being maintained, where the transferee fails to provide basic amenities.
Is there a ceiling on what the Tribunal can award?
The Act caps the Tribunal's award at the amount prescribed by the State Government, subject to the statutory maximum of ten thousand rupees per month. Section 144 BNSS carries no such ceiling — the court fixes maintenance on need and means — which is one reason both remedies continue to matter.
Can parents also seek eviction of children from their house?
Orders protecting a senior citizen's possession of their own property, including eviction of adult children and their spouses in appropriate cases, have been sustained under the 2007 Act framework and its state rules. In Delhi, the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules provide an eviction procedure through the District Magistrate's machinery.