Allowed

Pushpalatha P. M. v. the District Collector and Appellate Tribunal

Kerala HC28 Oct 2021WP(C)/6947/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal to entertain a complaint against a senior citizen aunt under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The High Court held the proceedings lacked jurisdiction and quashed the orders.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P4 and P6 orders are quashed and the Ext.P1 complaint is rejected clarified that right of petitioner to appropriate remedies is left open.

Pushpalatha P. M. Vs the District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6947 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PUSHPALATHA P. M. AGED 62 YEARS W/O. CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT 'AVINCHANDRA', PUTHARAPARAMBA, P. O. GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE - 673016. BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH SMT.DONA PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673020. 2 THE SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673020. 3 THANKAM AGED 74 YEARS D/O. APPUTTY, C/O. SMITHA, RESIDING AT 'THEERTHAM', NELLIPARAMBU, OZHUKKARA, MAYANADU, KOZHIKODE - 673008. 4 SMITHA AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT 'THEERTHAM', NELLIPARAMBU, OZHUKKARA, MAYANADU, KOZHIKODE - 673008. BY SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶12

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.6947 of 2021 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2021

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Exts.P4 and P6 orders of the Maintenance Tribunal

¶15

under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶16

The third respondent is the aunt of the petitioner. She is presently residing along with the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had been residing with the petitioner for the past 33 years. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 petition before the Maintenance Tribunal for a direction to the third respondent to resume residence with the petitioner. Ext.P4 order was passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to hand over the records relating to the assets of the third respondent to her. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act. The appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order. It is challenging the same that the

¶17

W. P. (C) No.6947 of 2021

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

petitioner has approached this Court.

¶20

In spite of service of notice on respondents 3

¶21

and 4, there is no appearance.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

As is apparent from the facts narrated above and

¶24

the relief sought from the Tribunal, the application submitted by the petitioner before the Maintenance Tribunal was not maintainable. The Maintenance Tribunal

¶25

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal is to entertain an application for maintenance by a senior citizen or a parent for maintenance, or an application in terms of Section 23 of the Act challenging a conveyance. An application against the senior citizen and that too for purposes not mentioned under the Act, is not contemplated. The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the nature of Ext.P1. It is upon such complaint that Ext.P4 order was passed by the Tribunal. Ext.P4 order cannot be

¶26

W. P. (C) No.6947 of 2021

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

sustained.

¶29

That apart, the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order before the appellate authority. An appeal under the Act is maintainable under Section 16, only by the senior citizen or parent as the case may be and not against them. Therefore, the appeal also was not

¶30

maintainable. Suffice to notice that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction.

¶31

Accordingly Exts.P4 and P6 orders are quashed. Ex.P1 complaint will stand rejected. However, it is clarified that, the right of the petitioner to seek for appropriate remedies in the appropriate forum, is left open.

¶32

Writ petition is allowed as above.

¶33

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6947/2021

¶38

PETITION	ER EXHIB	ITS
EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2019.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPIES OF THE CONCILIATION MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS AND REPORT OF THE CONCILIATION OFFICER DATED 24.01.2020.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AS RECORDED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2020.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2020.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.09.2020.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2021.

Pushpalatha P. M. v. the District Collector and Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha P. M. v. the District Collector and Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Committee, Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Mrs.Remani Gopalan, Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

N.Bhasurangan Vs Anil Kumar

Rema Ramesh Vs Corporation of Cochin Represented by Its Secretary

Dinil Dinesh Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Joby P.Joy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)