Dismissed

K.P.Hari v. Purushothaman Namboothiri

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016WP(C)/1101/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged an order by the Maintenance Tribunal directing them to pay maintenance to their father, who possessed significant deposits. The Court found the Tribunal's order meritorious as it was supported by findings of fact, noting a lack of evidence regarding the senior citizen's financial insufficiency. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners directed to pay arrears within one month; Tribunal may take coercive steps thereafter.

K.P.Hari Vs Purushothaman Namboothiri — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1101 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.P.HARI, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOODHIRI, KALASAVALLI ILLOM, KERALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. K.P.JYOTHI, W/O.NARAYANAN, MEKKATT MANA, CHOORAKKODU P.O., VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

3. K.P.SARITHADEVI, W/O.LOHITHAKSHAN, PALAKKADU MANA, KALLADIPATTA P.O. ONGALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PUTHIYEDATH MANA, MINALUR P.O., MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.

¶13

2. THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR -680 001.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 1101 of 2012 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER TO EXT.P1 APPLICATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.1.09 IN M.C.53/08 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2017/09 OR AREECODE SRO. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.6.11.08 IN IA 1539/08 IN OS 219/08 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT SERVED UPON THE PETITIONERS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM.(IA.6140/2012)

¶26

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4522 OF 09. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4799 OF 2010 OF WADAKKANCHERRY SRO.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE METRES IN RE SY.NO.457/10/14 OF MANKARA VILLAGE.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT. R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE.

¶31

EXT. R1(C) :	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE.
EXT. R1(D) :	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MANJERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.89/2009.
EXT. R1(E) :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI IN CMA NO.23/2008.

¶32

--2--

¶33

--2--

¶34

WP(C).No. 1101 of 2012 (K)

¶35

EXT. R1(F) : TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET WITH PRESCRIPTION. EXT. R1(G) : TRUE COPY OF PERIODICAL INVESTIGATIONS DATED 16.9.2011. EXT. R1(H) : TRUE COPY OF PERIODICAL INVESTIGATIONS DATED 28.10.2011 & 16.12.2011. EXT. R1(I) : TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CRD OF MANAVA SEVA HOSPIAL. EXT. R1(J) : TRUE COPY OF NERVE CONDUCTION STUDIES DATED 16.9.2011. EXT.R1(K) : STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SHOWING THE PAYMENT DETAILS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶40

================== W.P.(C).No. 1101 of 2012

¶41

==================

¶42

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶43

The petitioners challenging an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 has approached this Court. The petitioners are the children of the first respondent. By the impugned order, the Tribunal passed an order of maintenance and directed the petitioners to pay the maintenance. The main contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that the senior citizen is having 1.5 crores of deposit and therefore he has sufficient means to maintain himself. It is to be noted that there was no evidence adduced before the Tribunal to prove means of the senior citizen, the tribunal found that the senior citizen is entitled for maintenance. In view of the finding of facts made by the Tribunal I don't find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner

¶44

: 2 :-

¶45

W.P.(C).No. 1101 of 2012

¶46

fails to pay the arrears within one month, it is open for the Tribunal to take coercive steps against the petitioners without

any delay.

sd/-

sab

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

K.P.Hari v. Purushothaman Namboothiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Hari v. Purushothaman Namboothiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.John Vs the Medical Officer

P.D.Augustine Vs the Geologist, Alappuzha

Vinu George Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Simi Vs State O F Kerala

Scaria Vs the District Geologist

S. Santhosh Kumar Vs Sub Divisionalmagistrate