The Court quashed an order of the Maintenance Tribunal for allegedly not addressing the complaint's averments, calling it a patent non-application of mind, and directed the Tribunal to pass fresh orders within one month after hearing all parties.
Ext.P10 order quashed and fresh orders passed within one month after hearing all parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.906 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONERS:
1 C.V.KOCHUSARA, AGED 85 YEARS W/O. T.P.POULOSE, FOUNTAIN , NAIRMADOM ROAD, MEENCHANDA, P.O.NALLALAM, CALICUT-673 027
2 JESSY T.PAUL, AGED 47 YEARS D/O. T.P.POULOSE, FOUNTAIN , NAIRMADOM ROAD, MEENCHANDA, P.O.NALLALAM, CALICUT-673 027
BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 SAJI T. PAUL, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. T.P.POULOSE, EXPRESS TOWER, KASABA VILLAGE, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673 002
2 REJI T.PAUL, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. T.P.POULOSE, EXPRESS TOWER, KASABA VILLAGE, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-673 002
3 KOZHIKODE SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-673 020
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C).No.906 OF 2020(K)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P10 order of the 3rd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is pointed that, while passing Ext.P10 order, the 3rd respondent did not specifically advert to the averments in Ext.P7 complaint preferred by the petitioners, and the impugned order does not deal with many of the averments that found place in Ext.P7 complaint. It is contended therefore that Ext.P10 order is vitiated by a patent non-application of mind by the 3rd respondent.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P10 order that it does not specifically advert to the averments in Ext.P7 complaint raised by the petitioners. I am, therefore, of the view that t he said order is vitiated by a patent non-application of mind by the
3
WP(C).No.906 OF 2020(K)
1st respondent, I therefore quash Ext.P10 order and direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns
4
WP(C).No.906 OF 2020(K)
APPENDIX
| PETITIONER'S/S | EXHIBITS: |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE KANAM ASSIGNED DEED DATED 25.04.1974,EXECUTED BY APPUKUTTAN IN FAVOUR OF T.POULOSE, AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1359/1974,OF THE SRO CHALAPPURAM |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNED DEED DATED 31.05.1977,EXECUTED BY APPU AND ACHUTHAN IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1406/1977,OF THE SRO CHALAPPURAM |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 23.02.200,EXECUTED BY T.PAULOSE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.554/2000,OF THE SRO MEENCHANDA |
| EXHIBIT P4 | RUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 23.10.200,EXECUTED BY T.PAULOSE IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2869/2002,OF THE SRO MEENCHANDA |
| EXHIBIT P5 | RUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 27.09.2008,EXECUTED BY 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS, AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.3507/2008,OF THE SRO MEENCHANDA |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NELLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.03.2019 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.03.2019, NO.RDOKKD/1181/2019-N1,ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 27.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P10 RESPONDENTS EX |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARED 10.07.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HIBITS:NIL |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
WP(C).No.906 OF 2020(K) 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance tribunal order is vitiated by patent non-application of mind for not addressing the complaint's averments.
Whether the Maintenance Tribunal is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing all parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.V.KOCHUSARA
JESSY T.PAUL
SAJI T. PAUL
REJI T.PAUL
KOZHIKODE SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
