Partly allowed

Chamukuttan v. the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/487/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. It set aside the liability of two petitioners (grandchildren) to pay maintenance due to lack of materials proving their liability. The monthly maintenance payable by the original son (first petitioner) was reduced from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 3,000.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal directed against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners set aside. Maintenance against the 1st petitioner reduced to Rs. 3000 per month.

Chamukuttan Vs the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.487/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.487 OF 2021(I)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 CHAMUKUTTAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. KUNJUKUTTAN, PALAKKAPARAMBIL (THANIKKAPARAMBIL) HOUSE, MUNDAMUKA, CHUDUVALATHUR P. O., SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 121.

¶10

2 SUNITHA AGED 27 YEARS

¶11

W/O. ARUN, KANNAMPARAMBIL, MADAKKATHARA, MANNUTHI P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 651.

¶12

3 SUJITHRA

¶13

AGED 25 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, KLEENIL KADAVU, PAZHAYANNUR P. O., KONDAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 587.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE SMT.HASEENA K.A.

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

¶18

OTTAPPALAM, OFFICE OF SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.

¶19

2 AMMALU AGED 74 YEARS W/O. KUNJUKUTTAN, PALAKKAPARAMBIL (THANIKKAPARAMBIL) HOUSE, MUNDAMUKA, CHUDUVALATHUR P. O., SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 121.

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.NESNA

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.487/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

¶28

Petitioners are the son and grandchildren of the 2^nd respondent. The second respondent, who is aged about 74 years, moved Ext.P1 application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking maintenance from the petitioners, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. Though notice was issued to the petitioners herein, they remained absent. The Maintenance Tribunal by Ext.P2 order directed the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners to pay Rs.3,000/- each as monthly payment to the second respondent herein. This is under challenge in the present proceedings.

¶29

Elaborate arguments were advanced by the petitioners touching on the merits of the petition contending that, they were not given reasonable opportunity to appear before the court below and to contest the proceedings. Ext.P2 itself indicates that though notice was served on the petitioners, they did not appear on 5/10/2011, 26/11/2019 and 3/12/2019. It seems that, till the passing of the maintenance order, the petitioners herein did not appear. Hence, the Tribunal relied on the report of the technical assistant who visited the house of the second respondent and the details mentioned therein. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order, petitioners are

¶30

W.P.(C) No.487/2021

¶31

¶32

directed to pay the amount. Subsequently, alleging that there was no compliance of Ext.P2 order, the first petitioner was ordered to be detained. He has completed the detention period and has come out. It seems that, though the Tribunal could refer to the materials placed before it, it did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioners due to their own latches. I find no reason to hold that the court below committed any irregularity in passing the order .

¶33

On merit there is nothing on record to indicate that the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners should be burdened with liability to maintain the 2^nd respondent herein. The reason for imposing liability on the first petitioner seems to be on the ground that the other children are looking after the second respondent.

¶34

Having considered the above, I am inclined to set aside the Ext.P2 order, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- each per month in the absence of any materials to indicate that they are liable to maintain their grand mother. However, regarding the maintenance ordered against the first petitioner, I feel that since other children are also looking after the mother, a sum of Rs.4,000/-

¶35

is on the higher side. Having considered this, I am inclined to modify the impugned order by directing the first petitioner to pay and continue to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month commencing from the 1^st April onwards.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.487/2021

¶37

¶38

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

W.P.(C) No.487/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2020.

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FROM THE SUB INSPECTOR, PAZHAYANNUR SEEKING TIME TO EXECUTE SUMMONS TO SECOND AND THIRD PETITIONERS DATED 25.09.2020.

¶50

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2020.

Chamukuttan v. the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamukuttan v. the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate

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

Tibin James Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Jose V.C. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Ragesh R.I. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Salim K.B. Vs Registering Authority

K.P.Antony Vs the Secretary

Archana Reji Vs Thakazhy Grama Panchayat