suresh 16-WPL-3373.2019.doc expectation is belied because the maintenance, which is inclusively defined to mean provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment, is denied. The senior citizen in this case made the specific allegation and pointed out that it is the behaviour and conduct of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which raise a serious apprehension in the mind of the mother, namely, respondent No.3/applicant before the Tribunal. She has listed the acts attributable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and which have been summarised during the discussion on Issue Nos.2 and 3, framed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal thus is not influenced only by the presence of Chandrakant, the elder brother, and his wife. That Chandrakant and his wife have ill-treated children in their home by running an illegal business is thus not the foundation for the whole case. The foundation is the relief claimed by the senior citizen by invoking the relevant provision by making specific allegations with regard to denial of maintenance. That petitioner No.1 has neglected the senior citizen, his own mother, is established and proved by the statement of respondent No.3 as also the other materials placed on record. The Tribunal has, in the discussion on Issue No.2, reasoned that the premises do not belong to either son. The premises belongs to the father and the mother of petitioner No.1. Though the respondent/petitioner No.1 might state that he is the joint holder in the property, but the ownership rights are with the applicant. During her lifetime there could not have been
