Quashed

K.K. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/13757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions filed by a parent and a son against each other, the Court held that the Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The Tribunal's eviction order and consequent enforcement proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Maintenance Tribunal dated 19.03.2016 and subsequent enforcement proceedings are quashed. The right to approach the District Magistrate under Rule 19 is left open.

K.K. Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17470 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANIL KUMAR,AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.K.K.PADHMANABHAN, PARAVANPARAMBIL (H), CHORIKKANPARA COLONY, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 538.

¶8

BY ADV LEEJOY MATHEW.V.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,

¶14

DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶15

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM-686 538.

¶16

6 K.K.PADMANABHAN, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, PARAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHORIKKANPARA COLONY,

¶17

PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 538.

¶18

BY ADV SANIL JOSE SR. GP SMT.SHEEJA C.S

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).13757/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶25

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶26

WP(C) NO. 13757 OF 2021

¶27

PETITIONER:

¶28

K.K. PADMANABHAN,AGED 83 YEARS,S/O KRISHNAN, PARAVANPARAMPIL HOUSE,CHORIKKANPARA COLONY,PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O,VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686538.

¶29

BY ADV SANIL JOSE

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,SOCIAL JUSCTICE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶32

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM,COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002., PIN - -2

¶33

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM,COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶34

4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, KOTTAYAM-686001., PIN - -3

¶35

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION, VAKATHANAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686538.

¶36

6 ANILKUMAR,AGED 47,YEARS,S/O.K.K.PADMANABHAN, PARAVANPARAMPIL HOUSE,CHORIKKANPARACOLONY, PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686538.

¶37

BY ADVS. LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA M.G.TINU TREASA RAKESH LEO SR. GP SRI.BIMAL K NATH

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021,

¶39

ALONG WITH WP(C).17470/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶41

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Writ petition Nos. 13757 of 2021 and 17470 of 2021 are filed by the father and son respectively, against each other.

¶44

The proceedings arise under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the

¶45

Act'). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as “father” and “son”.

¶46

The father approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of the son from the house alleging harassment including assault at his hands. The Tribunal ordered eviction of the son. The said order was sought to be implemented by the father, which resulted in order for implementation of the same passed by the District Collector. The father seeks expeditious implementation of the order of eviction. The son challenges the orders as without jurisdiction. The Maintenance Tribunal

¶47

does not have jurisdiction to order eviction, is the contention. The son further relies on the judgment in O.S No.177 of 2017 of the Munsiff Court, Changanassery granting a prohibitory injunction restraining the father from forcibly evicting the son from the property in question. The son further relies the order in MC No.51 of 2015 of the Judicial

¶48

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶49

¶50

First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery passed in favour of his mother against the father under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the DV Act”). The order for eviction and the consequent steps taken

¶51

for enforcement of the same are bad in law, contends the son.

¶52

Heard learned counsel on either sides.

¶53

The judgment in O.S No.177 of 2017 is of no avail for the son in defending the proceedings for eviction since, the decree only restrains a forcible eviction except in accordance

¶54

with law. The proceedings for eviction is only under the process of law.

¶55

Coming to the order under the Domestic Violence Act, that also apparently will not come to the aid of the son since, it is only a protection order and not a residence order in terms of Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act and, it is an order in favour of the mother.

¶56

However, there is force in the contention of the son that the Maintenance Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. Neither Section 5 of the Act which deals with applications for maintenance nor Section 23 which enables the Tribunal to declare certain documents to be void,

¶57

vest the Tribunal with the power to order eviction. It has

¶58

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶59

¶60

been so held by this Court in Thoppil Anto v Glancin T A & others (2020(1) KHC 757) . Therefore, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal and the consequent proceedings are without jurisdiction. However, this Court has in Thoppil Anto's case ( supra ) held that the District Magistrate has power under Rule 19 of the Rules to order eviction to ensure peaceful living of senior citizens.

¶61

In the light of the above discussions, the order dated 19.03.2016 of the Maintenance Tribunal, Kottayam and the consequent proceedings thereof for enforcement of the same are quashed. The right of the father to move District Magistrate under Rule 19 of the Rules is left open.

¶62

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

vdv

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶67

¶68

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13757/2021

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶70

Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 14//5/2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAKATHANAM. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18/4/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/3/2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL. Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/2/2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶71

Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/7/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶72

W.P(C) NO.13757 of 2021 & 17470 of 2021

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17470/2021

¶75

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶76

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2016 VIDE NO.E4841/2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN MC NO.51/2015. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.177/2017. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2017. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E 4841/15 DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/3802/2017 DATED 16.02.2018.

K.K. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chittariparamba Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Parvathy S. J. Vs the Assistant Secretary

Ravi Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Muthoot Vehicles and Asset Finance Ltd., Vs the Regional Transport Officer/Registering Authority

Moosa C.C. Vs Station House Officer

M.v.Anitha Vs P.v.Krishnamarar