The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order from the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Court held that the direction to pay rent for maintenance was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction as no finding of maintenance obligation was made, and set aside the order.
Direction No.2 in Ext.P2 stands set aside.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)
PETITIONER:
K.RATHNAKARAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O KUNDOOR RAMAN, KUNDOOR HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA P O -673009, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 K.SATHYANATHAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O KUNDOOR RAMAN, KUNDOOR HOUSE, KANNACHANKANDI PARAMBA, KURIVISSERI CANAL STOP, MALIKKADAVU P O, PIN-673010, KOZHIKODE.
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND RDO, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE P O, PIN-673020, KOZHIKODE.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SANJEEVE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of February 2021
The respondent herein by Ext.P1 application sought protection and reliefs under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The petitioner being the elder brother. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed against him, has approached this Court. The grievance of the respondent herein was that he was harassed and threatened by the petitioner. He also forcefully took possession of a shop room held by the respondent. Hence, he sought for protection in relation to his property and life.
WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)
3
rent to the respondent towards the food and treatment expenses.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The direction No.2 in Ext.P2 stands set aside.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
SKP/17-2
WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/01/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.03.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 24/09/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 19/01/2021.
RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay half rent towards food and treatment expenses.
Whether there is a finding that the petitioner is under an obligation to maintain the respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Rathnakaran
K.Sathyananathan
Sub Collector and Maintenance Tribunal Sub Distributional Magistrate and RDO, Kozhikode
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
