Remanded

Riyas Ali v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/42008/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an interim maintenance order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal despite Section 12 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 prohibiting concurrent CrPC proceedings. The High Court directed the Tribunal to examine the Section 12 violation and decide on the order's validity within three months, while maintaining the status quo of payments

What did the court decide?

Maintenance Tribunal directed to consider Section 12 violation and confirm/vary/vacate Ext.P4 order within 3 months; petitioners to continue payments pending. No refund if order vacated.

Riyas Ali Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 42008 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RIYAS ALI, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMADLI, RESIDING AT THOYALINKUNNATH HOUSE, PATTARNADAKKAVU, P.O. ANANTHAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 RANESH ALI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMADALI, RESIDING AT THOYALINKUNNATH HOUSE, PATTARNADAKKAVU, P.O. ANANTHAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 RAMSEER ALI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMADALI, RESIDING AT THOYALINKUNNATH HOUSE, PATTARNADAKKAVU, P.O. ANANTHAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON SHRI.MANEKSHA D. SRI.BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, P.O. TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676102

¶13

2 MUHAMMADALI T.K, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT THOYALINKUNNATH HOUSE, KAINAKKARA, P.O.VAIRAMKODE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676301

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 42008/18

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are the sons of the 2^nd respondent, who is the senior citizen involved in this case, impugn Ext.P4 order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as Act for short).

¶21

The primary challenge of the petitioners

¶22

is that Ext.P4 has been issued by the

¶23

Maintenance Tribunal without adverting to the fact that the senior citizen has, in fact, invoked the provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC, not once but twice, by first approaching the Family Court, Malappuram; however, leading to its dismissal through Ext.P1 order and thereafter the Family Court, Tirur, which also

¶24

dismissed his application through Ext.P2 order. According to the petitioners, Ext.P4 order, is therefore, in violation of Section 12 of the Act, which prohibits the senior citizen from

¶25

WPC 42008/18

¶26

¶27

invoking jurisdiction under the CrPC and the Act simultaneously.

¶28

I have heard Sri. S.K. Premjith Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader. However, even though notice has been issued from this Court to the senior citizen and validly served on him, he has chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel, constraining me to dispose of this matter without hearing him.

¶29

The learned Senior Government Pleader,

¶30

appearing on instructions from the Maintenance Tribunal, submits that it is true that the said Tribunal had not considered the rigour of Section 12 that may be attracted on account of

¶31

Exts.P1 and P2 orders; but that it had directed

¶32

the petitioners to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the senior citizen because he is suffering from

¶33

cancer. She says that the Tribunal has also found that the senior citizen is unable to work

¶34

WPC 42008/18

¶35

4 and that he will require a minimum of

¶36

Rs.10,000/- towards treatment alone every month.

¶37

She adds that Ext.P4 order, therefore, has been issued taking note of the plight of the senior citizen and finding that his condition is very pitiable, thereby deserving all protection under the Act.

¶38

Even when I hear the learned Government

¶39

Pleader as afore, her submissions being

¶40

extremely justified in the given circumstances, the fact remains that the Maintenance Tribunal

¶41

has not considered the rigour of Section 12 of

¶42

the Act while issuing Ext.P4 order.

¶43

As I have already indicated above, the

¶44

Maintenance Tribunal certainly ought to have considered the rigour of Section 12 of the Act

¶45

in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 orders, and I am, therefore, firm in my mind that this singular issue has to now gain the attention of the said

¶46

Tribunal, before Ext.P4 order can be put into operation.

¶47

WPC 42008/18

¶48

¶49

In such perspective, even though I do not

¶50

propose to set aside Ext.P4 order immediately, I direct the Maintenance Tribunal to consider this issue, as to whether it will obtain jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, taking note of Exts.P1 and P2 orders and to thereafter decide whether Ext.P4 order requires to be modified, vacated or confirmed.

¶51

This exercise shall be completed by the Maintenance Tribunal, after affording an

¶52

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as to the senior citizen on this issue and

¶53

it will resultantly issue an apposite order either confirming, varying or vacating Ext.P4 order in terms of law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

Needless to say, since I have not vacated Ext.P4 order, the petitioners will be enjoined to pay the amounts as ordered therein, until it

¶55

is modified, if so found necessary by the

¶56

WPC 42008/18

¶57

¶58

Tribunal through the exercise as ordered herein.

¶59

I also record that this is expressly agreed to

¶60

by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶61

amounts so paid by the petitioners will not be directed to be refunded by the senior citizen

¶62

even if Ext.P4 order is vacated.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 42008/18

7 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM IN M.C NO. 353 OF 2009 DATED 10/09/2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR IN M.C.NO.583 OF 2013 DATED 3/6/2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, TIRUR IN MCC.26 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, TIRUR IN MCC.26 OF 2017 DATED 25/01/2018

Riyas Ali v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas Ali v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Asha Sudarshanan, Vs State of Kerala

Athikal Muhammed Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Ahamed Kunhi K., Vs Union of India

Shanavas.K.v Vs the Manager

Panniyankara Oil Mils, Vs the Auhtorized Officer

Sumadevi.R Vs Federal Bank