Allowed

Thankamma v. the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016WP(C)/28379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order of the Presiding Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which failed to address the petitioner's request to cancel a document. The Court directed the officer to decide the application after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P6 order; directed Respondent 1 to decide the application after hearing parties within two months.

Thankamma Vs the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 28379 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THANKAMMA D/O.ELI, AGED 70 YEARS, 'BIJU BHAVAN', GOVINDAMANGALAM, ESSALIKODU, MARUKIL DESOM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 507.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SUB COLLECTOR & PRESIDING OFFICER MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2. SRI. SIJU V.T S/O.VELUKUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, CHAIKKULAM, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695 572.

¶12

3. SMT. NISHA W/O.SIJU V.T, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, CHAIKKULAM, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695 572. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S KANNAN R2&3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH SRI.DANI J.PAUL SMT.G.MAHESWARY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MLG

¶15

WP(C).No. 28379 of 2016 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.4074/2009 OF S.R.O. MALAYINKEEZHU DATED 23.10.2009. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.85/111/2015 DATED 24.07.2015 OF S.R.O. MALAYINKEEZHU EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.638/2015 IN M.C.NO.18/2015 DATED 22.04.2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKKADA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL(R.D.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.11.2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C]NO.29461/2015 DATED 29.09.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.12-10329/15 DATED 08.12.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE

MLG

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶24

W.P.(C). No.28379 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 70 years. Petitioner approached the 1^st respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking to cancel a document executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2^nd respondent. However, Ext.P6 order is passed by the 1^st respondent without taking a decision on the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. It is in this background challenging Ext.P6 this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

¶29

The question revolves round Ext.P6 order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 08.12.2015. From the body of Ext.P6, it is categoric and clear, petitioner has sought a relief to cancel the document, which is not at all considered by the

¶30

1^st respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion

¶31

W.P.(C). No.28379 of 2016

¶32

¶33

that, Ext.P6 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is liable to be interfered with.

¶34

Therefore, I set aside Ext.P6 order and direct the 1^st respondent to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In order to proceed with the matter, petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 are directed to appear before the 1^st respondent on 7.12.2016.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶38

smv 23.11.2016

Thankamma v. the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma v. the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Opm Dream Mill Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Malayalam Communications Ltd.

George Joseph Vs the Enviornmental Engineer

Perumani Siva Kshethra Hyndava Seva Trust Vs District Collector

K. Chandramohan Vs District Collector

M/S. Ashirwad Trading Company Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust Vs State of Kerala