Partly allowed

Shobhana.v.K@Shobha v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector

Kerala HC26 Mar 2019WP(C)/5452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a daughter of the 2nd respondent senior citizen, challenged the maintenance tribunal order directing her to pay Rs. 500 monthly maintenance. The court, noting her inability to pay due to low pension and ailments, granted liberty to approach the tribunal for modification while leaving other order findings unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to the extent of quashing the order regarding the quantum of maintenance; liberty granted to approach the Maintenance Tribunal for modification within two weeks.

Shobhana.v.K@Shobha Vs Maintenance Tribunal and Sub… — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHOBHANA.V.K@SHOBHA AGED 53 YEARS D/O GOVINDAN (LATE), VEVUMKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR ABHAYA NIKETHAN, THOTTADA, THOTTADA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 007. BY ADVS. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB COLLECTOR, THALASSERY, THALASSERY.P.O KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 101.

¶10

2 NARAYANI, AGED 77 YEARS W/O GOVINDAN (LATE), VEVUMKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR ABHAYA NIKETHAN, THOTTADA, THOTTADA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 007.

¶11

3 SASIDARAN @ SASI, AGED 49 YEARS S/O GOVINDAN (LATE), VEVUMKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR ABHAYA NIKETHAN, THOTTADA, THOTTADA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 007.

¶12

4 RANJITH.V.K, AGED 46 YEARS C/O CHANDRAN, PUTHIUYA VALAPPIL ELAYAVOOR SOUTH, MUNDAYAD.P.O KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 007.

¶13

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019 2

¶14

5 MANOJ.V.K @ MANU, AGED 43 YEARS C/O VIJAYAN, VANIAN KELOTH, CHALA EAST, CHEMBILOD.P.O KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 007.

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.R.JAGADA BAI

¶16

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, who is stated to be the daughter of the 2^nd respondent senior citizen, coming within the sweep of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('Maintenance Act' for short), has filed this writ petition impugning Ext. P1 order, as per which, she has been asked to pay Rs. 500/- as monthly maintenance to the senior citizen. The petitioner's specific assertion is that she is a widow, drawing a meagre pension and that she is not in a position to pay Rs. 500/-, as has been ordered in Ext. P1. She, therefore, prays that the Maintenance Tribunal be directed to reconsider the quantum of maintenance ordered against her.

¶21

Even though notice has been served validly on respondents 2 to 5, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel, thus constraining this Court to dispose of this matter without hearing their version.

¶22

The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. K.Amminiutty, appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent, submits that Ext. P1 order has been issued as early as in July 2018 and that the petitioner has approached this Court only on

¶23

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019 4

¶24

22-02-2019. She says, therefore, that Ext. P1 may be allowed to operate, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Maintenance Tribunal appropriately for modification of the quantum of maintenance against her. She prays that all other findings and conclusions in the said order be permitted to remain.

¶25

On hearing the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Zubair Pulikool, submitted that his client is not in a position to pay even Rs. 500/as of now, since she is suffering from various ailments, thus being unable to save any amounts from the meagre pension that she receives and therefore prayed that she may be allowed to approach the Maintenance Tribunal without any condition.

¶26

Taking note of the afore submissions and since respondents 2 to 5 have chosen not to be present before this Court, I order this writ petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Maintenance Tribunal with an application for modification of the quantum of maintenance ordered against her, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Tribunal will consider such

¶27

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019 5

¶28

application, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all parties, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month thereafter.

¶29

Needless to say, I have not considered any of the other contentions of the petitioner and therefore, all findings and conclusions in Ext. P1 except the quantum of maintenance, will remain unaffected by this judgment.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

SVP

¶34

WP(C).No. 5452 of 2019 6

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.C.NO.90/2018 DT.12.07.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.804/1970 OF S.R.O. KADACHIRA. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE EDAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

PA TO JUDGE

Shobhana.v.K@Shobha v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhana.v.K@Shobha v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector

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

Chokkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Anoop Jose Vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.556

Mon Joseph Vs Dr.Venu.v.Ias

Thajunesa Vs the Authorised Officer

Sunu George, Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs State of Kerala