Allowed

Sasidharan v. Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District Maintenance Tribunal

Kerala HC2 Aug 2018WP(C)/26094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent Maintenance Tribunal to consider and dispose of the petitioner's maintenance application under the Act of 2007 within two months, ordering service of notice on respondents 2 and 3.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 1st respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sasidharan Vs Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 26094 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SASIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, MATTILPARAMBU, KAITHARAM(P.O), N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM (DT), PIN-683519.

¶8

BY ADV.SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. PRESIDING OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, OFFICE OF THE R.D.O., FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-682001. 2. VIJU, S/O SASIDHARAN, MATTILPARAMBU, KAITHARAM(P.O), N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM(DT), PIN-683519. 3. DHANASYA, W/O. VIJU, MATTILPARAMBU,KAITHARAM(P.O), N.PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM(DT), PIN-683519. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C. VIDHYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

mbr/

¶12

WP(C).No. 26094 of 2018 (I)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶15

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶16

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23/1/2018 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE.

¶17

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 03.08.2018.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(Civil) No.26094 of 2018

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 02^nd day of August, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner who is the senior citizen and parent, is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent Maintenance Tribunal in the disposal of Ext.P1 application dated 23.01.2018 filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in which his son (R2) and daughter-in-law (R3) have been arrayed as the two respondents herein.

¶28

The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:

¶29

“i. To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction directing the 1^st respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 petition submitted by the petitioner forthwith within a time frame.

¶30

ii. To grant such other reliefs and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶31

Heard Smt.K..V.Bhadra Kumari, learned counsel appearing for

¶32

the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶33

In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition (civil), notice to the contesting respondents 2 and 3 will stand dispensed with.

¶34

: 2 :-

¶35

W.P.(Civil) No.26094/2018

¶36

Smt.K.V.Bhadra Kumari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits based on the instructions from the party that urgent orders are required on Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner as early as on 23.01.2018 before the 1^st respondent Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the above said Central Act and that it is learnt that even notices have been issued by the Tribunal to the contesting respondents 2 and 3 herein and that this Court by passing orders in the interest of justice to ensure the early consideration and disposal of Ext.P1 application.

¶37

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the 1^st respondent Tribunal will ensure the early consideration and disposal of Ext.P1 application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The Registry will forward certified copies of the judgment along with the copies of the writ petition (civil) to the contesting respondents 2 and 3 by registered post at the cost of the petitioner. Receipt of such communication in that regard from the Registry, shall be treated as service of notice in respect of Ext.P1 application on respondents 2 and 3 herein. Thereafter, the respondents 2 and 3 will ensure that they file their written objections before the Tribunal, on the matters raised in

¶38

: 3 :-

¶39

W.P.(Civil) No.26094/2018

¶40

Ext.P1 application, without much delay, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the above said communication from the Registry of this Court. Thereafter, the Tribunal will permit both sides to adduce evidence and should render a considerable decision on Ext.P1 application within the aforestated time limit. The office of the Advocate General will forward a certified copy of the judgment to the 1^st respondent Tribunal for necessary information and further action in this case. The 1^st respondent should also ensure that notice by registered post is separately sent to respondents 2 and 3 herein, in respect of Ext.P1 application, within two days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in case, such notices have not so far been issued.

¶41

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition (civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶44

SB/03/08/2018

¶45

// true copy //

¶46

P.A to Judge

Sasidharan v. Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District Maintenance Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan v. Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District Maintenance Tribunal

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

C.Rajan Vs the Tahsildar

P.K.Fathimakutty Vs State of Kerala

Fazil A.M. Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Baiju Vs the Sub-Registrar

N.Muhammed Nisar Vs the Land Tribunal, Tirur

George Baby Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department