Disposed

Muthuvana Thayyil Kunhipathu, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC22 Oct 2020WP(C)/22582/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen petitioner challenged daughter's refusal to provide maintenance. Court dispensed with notice to respondent-daughter, directed Revenue Officer to expedite proceedings and finalize petition within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to expedite proceedings and finalize Petition within three months; notice to 2nd respondent dispensed with.

Muthuvana Thayyil Kunhipathu, Vs the Revenue… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 30TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22582 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUTHUVANA THAYYIL KUNHIPATHU, AGED 87 YEARS, M/O. MAHAMOOD, MUTHUVANA THAYYIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR P.O, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DT 670 692

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANIL KUMAR (CHUNAKKARA)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, THALASSERY P.O, KANNUR DT, PIN - 670 101

¶11

2 SULAIKA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. ABOOBAKKER, CHATHOTH HOUSE, MUTHIYANGA P.O, PIN 670 671

¶12

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.22582 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner herein states that she is aged 87 years and a cancer patient. She has two children and she is residing with her son. The 2nd respondent herein is her daughter. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent to maintain and support the petitioner, she approached the 1st respondent with Exhibit P1 petition invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner contends that owing to her advanced age, the petitioner has a right to get Ext.P1 decided without any further delay. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P1 within a time frame.

¶18

I have heard Sri.Anil Kumar K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the advanced age of the petitioner efforts can be made to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date on which the presence of the 2nd respondent is secured. Having regard to the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions

¶20

WP(C).No.22582 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

made across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to expedite the proceedings and finalise Ext.P1 after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent in the petition to advance their respective cases. Final orders shall be passed in consonance with law, ideally, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶23

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 1st respondent for further action.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

DSV

¶28

WP(C).No.22582 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1

¶33

THE TRUE COPY OF THE MCC NO. 36/2020 DATED 04-06-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶34

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

Muthuvana Thayyil Kunhipathu, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuvana Thayyil Kunhipathu, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansar, Vs the District Collector

Jilumol Mariet Thomas Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer, (Registering Authority)

Indus Towers Limited Vs Shiji

Akhil O. Vs the District Collector

R.Vijayan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sudheer S., Vs the Regional Transport Authority