Disposed

Bindhu Abraham, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC22 Feb 2019WP(C)/3334/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that an order directing the petitioner not to abuse the senior citizen did not override her valid Family Court residence order. It directed authorities to ensure the senior citizen's residence continues without obstruction while the petitioner rights remain intact.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with clarifications that the Tribunal order does not affect petitioner's residence rights and directions to authorities to ensure senior citizen's residence is unaffected.

Bindhu Abraham, Vs Revenue Divisional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINDHU ABRAHAM, AGED 37 YEARS

¶8

W/O.SIBI THOMAS, MAMMOOTTIL VEEDU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686533.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.RESMI NANDANAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶12

OFFICE OF THE RDO, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶13

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶14

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3 SMT.ANNAMMA THOMAS, MAMMOOTTIL VEEDU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686533.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA SMT.PAWAN ROSE JOHNSON

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The daughter-in-law of a senior citizen, who has been arrayed as respondent No.3 herein, is the petitioner in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), has incorrectly found therein that she has been physically and mentally torturing the senior citizen and has consequentially directed her not to do so. The petitioner says that the actual truth is to the contrary and that she is being tortured by her husband and the senior citizen with an intention to throw her out of the matrimonial home, even though she is enjoying an order of residence from the competent Family Court.

¶24

Smt.Pawan Rose Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, refutes all the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and asserts that her client was constrained to approach the Maintenance Tribunal because she is under valid apprehension that her son and the petitioner herein, who is her daughter-in-law, would impede her stay in the house in

¶25

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶26

¶27

question and that she would be thrown out. The learned counsel submits that it is true that her client had made certain allegations against her son and the petitioner in the complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal but that the Tribunal has merely recorded such complaints in Ext.P1 and thereafter, has directed her son and the petitioner not to cause any obstruction to her residence in the house in question. She therefore, says that the cause projected by the petitioner, in this writ petition, is completely hypothetical and conjectural.

¶28

The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.K.Amminikutty, submits on instruction received from respondents 1 and 2, that even though the allegations of the senior citizen has been recorded in Ext.P1, the Maintenance Tribunal was careful enough not to enter into a conclusive opinion on the same, but thought it fit to leave the parties to live in the house in a cordial atmosphere; and consequentially that a direction was given to the petitioner and her husband to ensure that they do not ill-treat the senior citizen in any manner. She therefore, also says that the apprehension of the petitioner is without basis.

¶29

When I evaluate the submissions made as afore by the

¶30

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶31

¶32

learned counsel and when I examine Ext.P1, I find that the said order does not conclusively say that the petitioner has, in any manner, physically or mentally abused the senior citizen, but has only directed her not to do so in future. No doubt, the Maintenance Tribunal has recorded the allegations of the senior citizen, but has not concluded upon it affirmatively. Therefore, I am certain in my mind that the petitioner's apprehension that Ext.P1 order may be used against her, does not appear to be on strong legs.

¶33

When I say so, I am not oblivious to the fact that the petitioner herself is enjoying an order of residence in the house in question from a competent Family Court and therefore, it may be her legitimate fear that Ext.P1 order will be used against her as a counter action. Keeping this in mind, I clarify that Ext.P1 order is only with respect to the right of the senior citizen to live in the house in question and will not, in any manner, affect or impede the rights of the petitioner, as long as she stays there under a valid order.

¶34

In the result, I dispose of this writ petition with the above clarifications, without issuing any further orders and direct the Authorities under the Act to ensure that the residence of the

¶35

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶36

¶37

senior citizen in the house in question continues without any

¶38

untoward event.

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No. 3334 of 2019

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2017 BEARING NO.E-1882/17 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.07.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.M.5/6150/17 DATED 14.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Bindhu Abraham, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindhu Abraham, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Sadik V.J. Vs the District Collector

Rahana, Vs the Punjab National Bank

Radhamma P., Vs Authorized Officer

Leena N., Vs Sobhana Kumari

Michael Dcruz Vs the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Shajahan Pareli Kunjumoideen Vs the Regional Transport Officer