Dismissed

Siya Marakkar, v. Akbar Marakkar

Kerala HC26 Feb 2019WP(C)/4343/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging an order and notice issued by the Maintenance Tribunal. The petitioner conceded to opening one room for the senior citizen father and was given one month's time. The challenge to the subsequent notice was rejected with liberty to file separate remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given one month's time to deliver vacant possession of one room; liberty to pursue remedies against the notice.

Siya Marakkar, Vs Akbar Marakkar — 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 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIYA MARAKKAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O AKBAR MARAKKAR RESIDING AT MARAKKAR MANZIL EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) SMT.ROBEKA JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 AKBAR MARAKKAR, AGED 68 YEARS MARAKKAR MANZIL EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 586.

¶11

ADDL R2 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARKET JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689 101

¶12

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 IN I.A.NO.01/2019 IN WP(C) 4343/2019

¶13

BY ADVS. SMT.K.R.MONISHA SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

¶14

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is concededly the son of the 1^st respondent - a Senior Citizen coming within the sweep of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (herein-after referred to as “Act” for short), challenges Exhibits-P3 and P4 order and notice respectively, issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Act, as being illegal and unlawful.

¶20

The petitioner asserts that Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal, to the extent to which he has been asked to open one room of the house in question for the benefit of the Senior Citizen, is illegal, untenable and beyond the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. According to him, he is willing to pay the maintenance amount ordered therein, but that he will not open any of the two rooms that are now in his custody and he says that these rooms have been used to store his old furniture and certain other valuables, but without mentioning what these valuables are.

¶21

Shri.Abdul Salam, the learned counsel appearing for

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶24

the senior citizen, submits that the house in question is a small one and that his client is finding it very difficult to stay there with his family because two of the rooms of the said building are now kept closed and under the lock and key of the petitioner. He says that it is, therefore, that his client had approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking the opening of these rooms so as to enable him to use it beneficially for the residence of his family.

¶25

Smt.K.Amminykutty, the learned Senior

¶26

Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent - Maintenance Tribunal, affirms the submissions made on behalf of the senior citizen and says that the materials and report available on record would clearly show that the present space for residence available to the senior citizen and his family are completely inadequate and that there is no justification for the petitioner keeping two rooms closed, ostensibly to store his old furniture. She says that the Maintenance Tribunal, therefore, was without error in issuing Ext.P3 order.

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶29

On hearing Shri.Abdul Salam and

¶30

Smt.K.Amminykutty as afore, Shri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that his client will open one room of the house and deliver vacant possession to the Senior Citizen, as has been ordered in Ext.P3 and pleads that his client be given a month’s time from today to do so. He says that his client will continue to pay the maintenance amount ordered therein without any demur. After saying so, Shri.Radhakrishnan, thereafter assails Ext.P4 notice issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, saying that it has been issued without jurisdiction.

¶31

When I hear Shri.Radhakrishnan as above, I see that no further orders are required as far as Ext.3 is concerned, since the petitioner has conceded to its terms, albeit, with a request that he be given some time to evict himself from one of the two rooms.

¶32

That said, as regards Ext.P4 is concerned, I see that it is only a notice issued by the Maintenance Tribunal and I am told by the learned Senior Government Pleader that, in fact,

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶35

both parties had appeared before the said Tribunal in pursuance of this notice. In any event of the matter, since it is only a notice, there is no reason why this Court should quash the same, and I leave full liberty to the petitioner to pursue all his contentions in terms of law against the proceedings being pursued under Ext.P4.

¶36

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and confirm Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal and give a month’s time from today to the petitioner to give vacant possession of one of the two rooms in his custody, as has been ordered in Ext.P3. Needless to say, the petitioner will be enjoined to pay the maintenance amount as directed in Ext.P3 without fail; and full liberty is reserved to him to pursue all his remedies against Ext.P4 in terms of law.

¶37

This Writ Petition is thus ordered.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 4343 of 2019

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 117/16 MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA.

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS 117/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.1.2019 BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL THIRUVALLA.

¶49

EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29.1.2019 BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL THIRUVALLA.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

\TRUE COPY//

¶52

PA TO JUDGE

¶53

Siya Marakkar, v. Akbar Marakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siya Marakkar, v. Akbar Marakkar

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

Ibrahim, Vs Dr.K.Vasuki

S.Uthaman Vs Authorised Officer

Basheer Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank

Kurian Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Nikil Das.a, Vs the Authorised Officer

V.H.Azad Vs the Authorized Officer