Petitioner challenged a reopening notice issued by the Maintenance Tribunal. The Court held the Tribunal had power to reopen proceedings suo motu under the Maintenance Act, distinguishing a Supreme Court case relying on different facts.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014/13TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 22434 of 2013 (D)
PETITIONER:
I.SHAHUL HAMEED S/O.M.IBRAHIMKUTTY, T C 13/705, SHAHINA MANZIIL KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENTS:
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & PRESIDING OFFICER MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035
2. P K NABEESA BEEVI,D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI T C NO 6/193(4)NETHAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAMAPRASAD UNNI R2 BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22434 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN MC 76/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 24019/11/K/DIS DTD 27/3/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO 13628/2013 DTD 26/6/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R2(a) SERIES: COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY AL-SABAR ORPHANAGE, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
smv
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
W.P.(C) No.22434 of 2013
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the son of the second respondent, Smt.P.K.Nabeesa Beevi. Smt.Nabeesa Beevi approached the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in the capacity as Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act 56 of 2007). Smt.Nabeesa Beevi approached the first respondent for certain reliefs invoking the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007 seeking protection, provided under the Act against the petitioner herein. Thereafter, by Ext.P1, she made a request to close the proceedings in view of the delay and also on account of some other reasons. Based on the above request, the first respondent closed the proceedings on 27.3.2013 as evident from Ext.P2. However, as per Ext.P3,
W.P.(C) No.22434 of 2013 2
the first respondent appears to have reopened the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. Ext.P3 is dated 26.6.2013. It is challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C) No.22434 of 2013 3
terms of Part IV of the Constitution of India under the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically with reference to Article 41.
6.I am of the view that the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007 cannot be barted away or contracted out. The statute, one being to sub-serve the welfare measures of the senior citizens, based on sound public policy emanating from constitutional provisions afore-noted, there cannot be any relinquishment of the right so created under the statute. It is also to be noted that under Section 5(1) of Chapter II of the Act 56 of 2007, an application for maintenance under Section 4, can be made by a senior citizen or in case, if he is incapable, by any other person or organization or by the Tribunal suo motu. In view of the fact that the Tribunal is vested with the power to initiate suo motu actions against the persons, who are liable to protect senior citizen, the argument that the Tribunal has no power to reopen the proceedings, is untenable. Ext.P3 could be treated as a notice initiated suo motu by the Tribunal even ignoring Exts.P1 and P2. The decision relied upon by the petitioner has
W.P.(C) No.22434 of 2013 4
no bearing as the Maintenance Tribunal does not become functus officio after the order passed closing the proceedings as the cause of action for approaching the Tribunal on the ground envisaged under the Act 56 of 2007 is recurring. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is fully justified in issuing Ext.P3. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the power to reopen proceedings suo motu after closing them.
Whether the argument that Tribunals cannot exercise review power absent express statutory provision is applicable in welfare legislation protecting senior citizens.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and AnotherDistinguished¶4
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another [(2011) 9 SCC 541] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
I.Shahul Hameed
Revenue Divisional Officer & Presiding Officer Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
P.K.Nabeesa Beevi
A.Muhamd Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
