Partly allowed

Thankappan v. Maintenance Tribunal

Kerala HC26 Jul 2019WP(C)/15517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a senior citizen under the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, challenged an order of the Maintenance Tribunal allegedly failing to address Section 23 plea and quantifying monthly maintenance. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration within one month.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 order set aside; Maintenance Tribunal directed to reconsider matter within one month and fix monthly maintenance.

Thankappan Vs Maintenance Tribunal — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THANKAPPAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PULLICKKAAPARAMBU HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM683 562

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.MONAYE SMT.BINCY JOSE SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686 673

¶11

2 RAJESH P.R., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PARAYARUKKAATIL HOUSE, CHOORAKODEKARA, PATTIMATTOM-683 562

¶12

3 SHIJI RAJESH, AGED 34 YEARS W/O. RAJESH, PARAYARUKKAATIL HOUSE, CHOORAKODEKARA, PATTIMATTOM-683 562

¶13

4 DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT , (RURAL,ERNAKULAM), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, RURAL, ALWAYE-683 101

¶14

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (S.I. OF POLICE), KUNNATHUNADU, PATTIMATTOM P.O., PIN-683 562

¶15

SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SMT.T.N.SREEKALA SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH,GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, coming within the sweep of the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act'), has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P9 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Act, primarily on two grounds: firstly, that it has not considered his plea under Section 23 of the Act; and secondly, that the amount of maintenance payable by respondents 2 and 3 to him has not been properly quantified.

¶21

Sri.M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as is clear from Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, the Maintenance Tribunal was directed to assess the plea of the petitioner with respect to Section 23 of the Act and also that his application for maintenance be considered within the parameters of law. He alleges that the Maintenance Tribunal has done neither and that, as is clear from Ext.P9, it has merely directed respondents 2 and 3 to allow his client to stay in the house and to provide him food, clothing and medical support, but without mentioning the amount to be paid as monthly maintenance. Sri.M.M.Monaye, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be

¶22

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶23

¶24

set aside.

¶25

In response to the afore, Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, submits that, going by the directions in Ext.P8 judgment, the Maintenance Tribunal was only expected to find out whether the senior citizen has been taken care of well and whether he requires any further protection in future. He says that, therefore, Ext.P9 cannot be found to be in error, since the directions therein are clearly to the effect that the senior citizen will be allowed to stay in the house constructed by his clients and also that they should provide them food, clothing and medical support. He says that nothing more was expected to be done by the Maintenance Tribunal.

¶26

Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that Ext.P9 order has been issued taking note of all the relevant parameters with respect to the petitioner's requirements and therefore, that the Maintenance Tribunal thought it fit to direct respondents 2 and 3 to give him food, shelter and medical support to the extent that he requires. He, however, concedes that the issues relating to Section 23 of the Act or with respect to the monthly maintenance has not been finally concluded in the

¶27

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶28

¶29

said order.

¶30

I have examined the order impugned, namely Ext.P9 and I find it has been issued against the directions of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. I am afraid that I cannot find Ext.P9 to be in any manner in conformity with Ext.P8 judgment and I consequently am of the opinion that the said order cannot sustain. This is because there is not even a whisper in Ext.P9 as to how the directions with respect to Section 23 of the Act has been complied with and there is no quantification of the monthly maintenance to be paid to the senior citizen; except directing that respondents 2 and 3 must provide for food, shelter and medical support to him. I am certain that this is not how the Maintenance Tribunal was expected to act consequent to the specific directions in Ext.P8 judgment and I, therefore, deem it appropriate that the said Tribunal be directed to reconsider all these matters.

¶31

Resultantly, I set aside Ext.P9 and direct the Maintenance Tribunal to immediately reconsider the complaint of the petitioner, after affording necessary opportunities of being heard to both sides and after following due procedure, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; reiteratingly

¶32

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶33

¶34

clarifying that the said Tribunal must consider the plea of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act in terms of the directions in Ext.P8 judgment and also fix the monthly maintenance eligible to him from respondents 2 and 3, in the resultant order.

¶35

For the expeditious compliance of the directions in this judgment, I direct the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 to mark appearance in the office of the Maintenance Tribunal at 11 a.m. on 02.08.2019; on which day or on any other convenient day to be fixed, the parties will be heard and the Maintenance Tribunal will then proceed to decide the matter in terms of the afore directions, but within the time frames granted herein.

¶36

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶37

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Stu

¶40

WP(C).No.15517 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE DATED	COPY OF 21.12.201	THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.7597/2013 3
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE DATED	COPY OF 24.3.2014	THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2184/2014
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE 13.11.	COPY OF 2017	THE ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE DATED
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE	COPY OF	THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2017
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE	COPY OF	THE FIR DATED 29.8.2016
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE	COPY OF	THE APPLICATION DATED 13.3.2017
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE	COPY OF	THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2018
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE WP(C)	COPY OF NO.15633	THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2018 IN OF 2018
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE TRIBUN	COPY OF AL DATED	THE SAID ORDER OF THE MAINTENANCE 26.2.2019

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A TO JUDGE.

Thankappan v. Maintenance Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankappan v. Maintenance Tribunal

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

Canara Bank, Vs K.Venugopalan Nair

P v Sindhu Vs the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op Society Ltd.

Navami Exports Vs the State of Kerala

Manju.M Vs the State of Kerala

Federal Bank Ltd. Kulasekharamangalam Branch Vs Anju Rajeev

Byju.T.O Vs Asok Kumar