Partly allowed

Thilakan M.R v. the Maintenance Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC18 Sept 2017WP(C)/2964/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of this Court set aside an order of the Maintenance Tribunal passed ex-parte in a case under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Act, 2007, for violation of natural justice due to lack of service of notice on the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear for a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; warranted remembrance issued; petitioner directed to appear on 09.10.2017.

Thilakan M.R Vs the Maintenance Tribunal and the… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2964 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THILAKAN M.R.,

¶8

S/O.RAGHAVAN,PENSIONER, AGED 61 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SREESHAILAM,PLOT NO C-7A, SAPNA NAGAR,GANDHIDAM MUNICIPALITY, KUTCH DISTRICT OF GUJARAT STATE,370 201 FROM MANGALATH VELIYIL, VARANAM MURI OF THANNERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, VARANAM P.O, CHERTHALA -688 555

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA -688 001

¶12

2. VASUMATHI, W/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 84 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS, RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VELI, VARANAM MURI OF THANNERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688 555

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 2964 of 2015 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-5-2014
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 27-5-2014 PASSED IN PROCEEDING NO K DIS 1640/14 E SENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 5-1-2015 VIA EMAIL FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24-12-2014 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER AS EMAIL FROM OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 5-1-2015
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-3-2014
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OPF THE VILLAGE OFFICE THANNERMUKKAM DATED 17-5-2014 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH EXHIBIT P-2 ORDER STANDS PASSED
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON 6-5-2014
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR ON 20-05-2014
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF COVER IN WHICH EXHIBIT P7 NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - W.P(C) No. 2964 of 2015 U

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P2 order. The

¶31

mother of the petitioner filed an application before the

¶32

Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007(for brevity the Maintenance Act” only) as is seen from Ext.P4. Ext.P4 sought for cancellation of deed NO.1353/1996 of SRO

¶33

Puthanambalam.

¶34

The petitioner is residing at Gujarat and he is

¶35

said to have received the notice only on the date of the second

¶36

posting, on which date itself, the impugned order was passed. Ext.P2 is challenged by the petitioner also for reason of

¶37

WP(C) No.2964/2015

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

ordering maintenance when there was no such prayer in the complaint. The complaint was confined to the cancellation of a document executed by the mother in the name of the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal having found the same to be not possible, for reason of the documents having been executed prior to the Act, should have rejected the complaint; is the other contention.

¶40

This Court would not make any observation on the merits of the matter, especially since, the petitioner was not heard and was not afforded a reasonable opportunity for appearance. The notice issued from the Court has been returned with the endorsement “Addressee refused”. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside for reason only of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner would be present on 09.10.2017 by himself or his authorised representative before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall

¶41

WP(C) No.2964/2015

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

intimate a date of hearing and personal acknowledgment

¶44

taken from the petitioner or his authorised representative on

¶45

that date itself. Notice shall also be issued to the complainant/mother of the petitioner and the matter shall be finalised expeditiously.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶47

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶48

jma

¶49

//true copy//

¶50

P.A to Judge

Thilakan M.R v. the Maintenance Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilakan M.R v. the Maintenance Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Madhu Vs the District Collector

Ambalathu Veettil Muhammed Ali Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Mohanan Vs the District Collector

M. Janardhanan Vs Sri. Paul Antony I.A.S

Shajib .P Vs Abdul Majeed

K Suresh Babu Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited