Disposed

Vincent K. Jacob v. K.T. Jacob

Kerala HC14 Feb 2018WA/397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to an interim maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. It held the Appellate Tribunal is bound to consider statutory rules regarding means enquiry. The court directed the Tribunal to complete the re-enquiry within eight weeks but held the appellant must pay the interim amount unless

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of without modification of the interim order, but the Appellate Tribunal was directed to complete the enquiry within eight weeks.

Vincent K. Jacob Vs K.T. Jacob — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 397 of 2018 IN WPC. 23853/2017

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23853/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER

¶10

VINCENT K. JACOB, SON OF K.T.JACOB, RESIDING AT VARSHA B 20, NEW MANDALA, ANUSHAKTI NAGAR, MUMBAI-400 094.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB

¶12

SRI.JIBU P THOMAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

K.T. JACOB, RESIDING AT JACOB VILLA, MUNDAKOM, PERUMBAIKKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 016.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶16

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

¶17

(MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007), COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶18

THE DISTRICT SOCIAL JUSTICE OFFICER,

¶19

DISTRICT SOCIAL JUSTICE OFFICE,

¶20

MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶21

THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶22

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE

¶23

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE DEPARTMENT

¶24

OF SOCIAL JUSTICE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,

¶25

5TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶26

BY SMT. ASHA BABU

¶27

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEK CHAND

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶30

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶31

W. A. No.397 of 2018

¶32

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶35

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23853 of 2017 is the appellant. In the writ petition, he impugned an order passed by the third respondent, whereby he was ordered to pay `7,500/- per month towards maintenance of the first respondent, his father. This order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”).

¶36

In the writ petition, the main contention raised was that the appellant does not have the means to pay the amount ordered and that it was without enquiring into the means of the appellant that the order was passed. He had another complaint that the sufficiency of the income already earned by the father for his maintenance was not enquired

W. A. No.397 of 2018

-2-

into.

By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge remitted the matter to the second respondent, Appellate Tribunal, with a direction to enquire into the means of the petitioner and the present condition of his father.

¶41

In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge erred in not clarifying that in the course of the enquiry, the Tribunal shall have due regard to the matters mentioned in Rules 13 and 14 of the Rules, 2009, framed under the Act. Learned counsel also contended that the appellant does not have the means to pay `7,500/- as interim maintenance pending final proceedings by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶42

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

Insofar the grievance of the appellant that the

¶44

W. A. No.397 of 2018

¶45

-3-

¶46

learned single Judge ought to have clarified that the matters mentioned in Rules 13 and 14 should also be adverted to when the matter is considered afresh by the Appellate Tribunal, is concerned, according to us, the obligation of the Appellate Tribunal to take due note of those aspects, is statutory and that even in the absence of any specific direction in that behalf, the Appellate Tribunal is bound to have regard to those statutory provisions in the course of enquiry.

¶47

With respect to the plea that the appellant should not be made to pay `7,500/- per month pending adjudication by the Tribunal is concerned, the absence of means is a matter which is yet to be established by the appellant and therefore, at this stage, we are not prepared to make any modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge.

¶48

Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the controversy, we direct that the second respondent

¶49

W. A. No.397 of 2018

¶50

-4-

¶51

Appellate Tribunal shall complete the enquiry as ordered by the learned single Judge as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and proceedings shall be completed with notice to both sides.

¶52

The writ appeal is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶56

kns/-

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

P.S. TO JUDGE

Vincent K. Jacob v. K.T. Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent K. Jacob v. K.T. Jacob

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

M.P.Narayanan Nambisan Vs T.P.Satheesan

State Bank of India, Rasmecc Vs M/S.Narniat Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

M.v.Alias Vs the Kerala State Human Rights Commission

The Manager, Ksm Vhss Vs Sheela T.

G.Balakrishnan Nair Vs v.J.Kurian

Anti Corruption Peoples Movement Vs State of Kerala