Remanded

Sukumaran Achari v. the Appellate Authority

Kerala HC1 Feb 2019WP(C)/153/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court writ petition challenged the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority which fixed maintenance without addressing the petitioner's plea under Section 23 to set aside a property document. The Court set aside both orders, remitted the matter for fresh consideration including the plea under Section 23, and directed the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration including the plea under Section 23, to be d

Sukumaran Achari Vs the Appellate Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 153 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUKUMARAN ACHARI, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.CHAMI ACHARI, POTHUVAYIL HOUSE, POMBRA PO, ELAMBULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SRI.T.S.NEJIMUDDIN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MAINTENANCE OF WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, (TRIBUNAL, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE MAINTENANCE OF WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007), CIVIL STATION, OTTAPALAM-679101.

¶12

3 SURESH BABU, S/O.SUKUMARAN ACHARI, POTHUVAYIL HOUSE, POMBRA PO, ELAMBULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

¶13

4 VASANTHA, W/O.SUKUMARAN ACHARI, POTHUVAYIL HOUSE, POMBRA PO, ELAMBULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.B.SUNILNATH-GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 153/19

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to be a senior

¶20

citizen coming within the sweep of the

¶21

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as

¶22

Act for short), impugns Ext.P3 order of the

¶23

Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the Act; as also Ext.P4 Order issued by the Statutory Appellate Authority.

¶24

According to the petitioner, even though he had sought for cancellation of the document executed by him in favour of the 3^rd respondent-

¶25

his son, under Section 23 of the Act, the

¶26

Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal did not consider his plea at all; but merely recorded that the 3^rd respondent will pay him a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. According to him, these orders are, therefore, incompetent and illegal because his specific plea regarding Section 23 of the Act was completely lost sight

WPC 153/19

of by the Tribunals.

I have heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Maintenance Tribunal.

¶31

Even though notices have been issued to respondents 3 and 4 and validly served on them, they have chosen not to be present in person before this Court or to be represented through counsel. I am, therefore, constrained to dispose

¶32

of this writ petition without hearing their version.

¶33

Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner submits that his client's specific case before the Maintenance Tribunal was that he has been driven out of the

¶35

house in the property covered by the document in

¶36

question and that he is entitled to have the said document set aside. He says that the document in question was executed by the senior

¶37

WPC 153/19

¶38

¶39

citizen with an implied condition, though not

¶40

expressly stated therein, that he shall be taken

¶41

care of and be given all basic needs and amenities by the 3^rd respondent. According to him, the said respondent has completely

¶42

neglected him thereafter and therefore, that all

¶43

the criterion under Section 23 have become

¶44

available in this case. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 order of the Maintenance Tribunal and the consequential Ext.P4 order of the Appellate Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Maintenance Tribunal for a fresh consideration in terms of law.

¶45

appearing on behalf of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, submits that, as is

¶46

clear from the orders impugned, the said

¶47

Tribunal have recorded that the 3^rd respondent is paying monthly maintenance to his father-the senior citizen without fail and, therefore, that

¶48

WPC 153/19

¶49

¶50

no further orders were found required. He,

¶51

however, concedes that the issues relating to Section 23 of the Act does not appear to be specifically noticed or recorded in the said orders.

¶52

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶53

writ petition and set aside Exts.P3 and P4

¶54

orders and direct the Maintenance Tribunal to reconsider the petitioner's complaint, including on the quantum of maintenance and his plea for

¶55

setting aside the document in question under Section 23 of the Act; and thereafter issue appropriate orders thereon, after affording

¶56

necessary opportunity to all parties, as

¶57

expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶58

Until such time as the Maintenance Tribunal takes a fresh view in the matter, the direction relating to the quantum of maintenance to be

¶59

WPC 153/19

¶60

¶61

paid by the 3^rd respondent to the senior citizen, as earlier fixed by the Tribunal through Ext.P3, namely Rs.4,000/-, will continue to be in force, subject to the modification to be made by the said Tribunal after hearing the parties.

¶62

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶63

SD/-

¶64

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 153/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.4703/1/2011 OF DATED 7.10.2011.	DOCUMENT SRO KADAMBAZHIPURAM
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER BE RESPONDENT REVENU DATED 23.5.2017.	APPLICATION FILED BY FORE THE 2ND E DIVISIONAL OFFICER
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DA	ORDER PASSED BY THE TED 9.4.2018.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST 9.10.2018.

Sukumaran Achari v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran Achari v. the Appellate Authority

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

Augustine Jackson Dauravoa Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Sreenivasan M.D, Vs the Authorised Officer Under Securitization Act

Safia P.S., Vs the Authorized Officer

The Kerala State Small Industries Association Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Joseph Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

A.M.Shanavas, Vs the Authorised Officer