The High Court of Kerala held that sons-in-law do not qualify as 'children' under the 2007 Act. The Tribunal's order failing to specify essential facts as required by the Act was set aside without costs.
The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside; parties directed to appear for fresh consideration.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 1937
W.P.(C).No.5558 of 2015 (T)
PETITIONER(S):-
BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU.
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.THOMAS JOSEPH (PALLIVATHUCKAL).
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5558 of 2015 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
| EXT P1- | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/10/2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NUMBER S-9380/2012/K.DIS BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, FORT KOCHI. |
|---|---|
| EXT P2- | TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 2/07/2013 OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI. |
| EXT P3- | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN M.C. NO.119/2014, FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. |
| EXT P4- | TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22/10/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN M.C.NO.119/2014. |
| EXT P5- | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2014 OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI PASSED IN S-9380/2012/K.DIS. |
| EXT P6- | TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 12/11/2014 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPODENT BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
----------------------------------------NIL.
Vku/ [ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
W.P.(C).No.5558 of 2015-T
-----------------------------------------Dated this the 06th day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
Petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons-in-law and petitioners
3 to 5 are the children of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for brevity “the Act”] and the Rules framed thereunder. The 1st respondent passed Exhibit P4 order.
WP(C).No.5558 of 2015
“R.13. Action by the Tribunal in other cases.-
xxx xxx xxx
(3) While passing an order under sub-rule (1), directing the opposite party to pay maintenance to an applicant, the Tribunal shall take the following facts into consideration:-
WP(C).No.5558 of 2015
order is passed without any application of mind and not in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Exhibit P5, hence, would stand set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 15.07.2015, on which date or any near date the matter shall be considered afresh.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sons-in-law of a senior citizen fall within the definition of 'children' under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Whether the Tribunal passed an order under Rule 13(3) of the Rules after considering the statutory criteria.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shaji Joseph and Others
The Maintenance Tribunal & Sub Collector
Stanley Varghese
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
