#Social Welfare Law

Kerala High Court rules that pension arrears under the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme cannot be withheld due to administrative delays, directing the Kozhikode Corporation to disburse arrears from May 2024 within three months. The judgment reinforces that welfare entitlements are enforceable rights, not discretionary benefits.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a farmer’s eligibility under the state’s accident welfare scheme is determined by active agricultural labor, not household income role. This sets a critical precedent for thousands of small and marginal farmers whose labor sustains family farms but who are often excluded by bureaucratic interpretations of 'breadwinner'.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband cannot evade his statutory maintenance duty under Section 125 CrPC by pointing to his wife’s family’s financial support. The judgment affirms that marital responsibility is independent of third-party assistance, reinforcing that economic vulnerability stemming from marital breakdown must be addressed by the spouse, not shifted to extended family.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that delays in claiming compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana are not fatal if sufficient cause is shown, reinforcing that beneficial social welfare schemes must be interpreted liberally. This sets a critical precedent for thousands of farmers whose claims were arbitrarily rejected on technical grounds, mandating authorities to decide on merits within eight weeks.

Allahabad HC rules that a bataidar certificate, even if produced belatedly, must be considered for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna. The court set aside the initial rejection, emphasizing that welfare schemes must account for rural beneficiaries' limited legal awareness and procedural hurdles.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a 90-day limitation period introduced after a beneficiary’s right accrued under the Deen Dayal Yojna cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally, directing payment within two months as the amendment lacked explicit retrospective effect.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that quasi-judicial powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be sub-delegated by the District Magistrate to subordinate officers. Orders passed by unauthorized officers are void, affecting appellate proceedings under the Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the Mukhya Mantri Kisan Yojna 2013 must be interpreted liberally to include accidental deaths during crop-saving activities, even if not part of official duties. The court awarded Rs. 5 lakh compensation to the farmer’s family, emphasizing the scheme’s protective intent for agricultural livelihoods.

Allahabad HC ruled that beneficiaries of welfare schemes cannot be penalized for administrative delays caused by state officials. The court quashed the rejection of a farmer’s widow’s insurance claim, holding that limitation periods must not override the scheme’s protective intent, especially when procedural lapses are attributable to the state.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be calculated on gross salary, not net take-home pay, reinforcing the statutory right to support regardless of a pending divorce decree or its stay. The judgment clarifies that financial obligations persist even if the wife is employed or the husband faces medical hardships, ensuring protection for dependent spouses and children.

The Bombay High Court ruled that eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are invalid unless tied to a legitimate maintenance claim. The judgment restricts Maintenance Tribunals from adjudicating property disputes, reinforcing that eviction powers are ancillary to maintenance obligations. This decision impacts senior citizens seeking eviction of relatives and sets a precedent for jurisdictional boundaries under the Act.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not empower tribunals to evict tenants who are not children or relatives of the senior citizen.

Bombay High Court holds that dismissal of maintenance petition for non-service of summons cannot override prima facie evidence of marriage, especially when petitioner seeks restoration same day.