Partly allowed

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Feb 2022RP/512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses two review petitions challenging a Common Judgment in writ petitions regarding maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court allowed one review by setting aside the judgment to re-hear the issue of arrears, while dismissing the other.

What did the court decide?

The review petition in WP(C)No.28406/2019 allowed; Common judgment set aside for further hearing. Review in WP(C)No.8/2021 dismissed; RP closed.

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943 RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021

¶5

(AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶7

ABDUL KADER MOHAMMED IQBAL,
AGED 63 YEARS
KARADAN HOUSE, KAKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

¶8

BY ADV T.B.REMANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676504.

¶11

2NIKHIL IQBAL, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KADER MOHAMMED IQBAL, EDAPPALLY HOUSE,
VEYKKAL, KAITHODE P.O., NILAMEL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691535.

¶12

3NITHIN IQBAL ALIAS NITHIN BAKER,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KADER MOHAMMED IQBAL, 13/373 D, HONEST NEST,
NEAR KSEB SUB STATION, ULLIYERI ROAD, PAVANGADU,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673021.

¶13

BY ADVS.
T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN
A.MOHAMMED
JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2022, ALONG WITH RP.475/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 &
RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶20

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943 RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019

¶21

AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN WP(C)
28406/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶22

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶23

ABDUL KADER MOHAMMED IQBAL,
AGED 63 YEARS

¶24

KARADAN HOUSE, KAKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., PIN-
679 322.

¶25

BY ADV T.B.REMANI

¶26

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 504.

¶28

2 NIKHIL IQBAL, EDAPALLY HOUSE, VEYKKAL, KAITHODE P.O., NILAMEL, KOLLAM, PIN-691 535.

¶29

3 NITHIN IQBAL ALIAS NITHIN BAKER, 13/373 D, HONEST NEST, NEAR KSEB SUB STATION, ULLIYERI ROAD, PAVANGADU, PIN-673 021.

¶30

BY ADVS.
T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN
JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN

¶31

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2022, ALONG WITH RP.512/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 & RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019 3

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

These review petitions are filed by a father, who had

¶35

moved the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of

¶36

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by filing an application dated 29.5.2017 seeking maintenance from his children. The maintenance Tribunal by its order rejected the application, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by proceedings dated 03.10.2019, allowed the prayer of the father and directed both the children to pay @ Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) per month on or before 5th of every

¶37

succeeding month. This was challenged in WP(C)No.8 of 2021 by the children and sought to quash the above order.

¶38

On the other hand, father filed

¶39

WP(C)No.28406/2019, on the specific ground that the

¶40

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 &
RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019

¶41

¶42

Appellate Authority went wrong in not granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application dated 29.05.2017. This court by a common judgment, disposed of both the writ petitions confirming the Appellate

¶43

Authority’s order. The review petition is filed in WP(C)No.28406/2019 on the ground that this court did not

¶44

pass any order in that WP(C) and the specific point on which the relief was sought in that writ petition was not considered. Being a common judgment, RP.No.512/2021 is filed in WP(C)No.8/2021.

¶45

Heard both sides.

¶46

Counter is filed traversing the various allegations.

¶47

Opposing the applications, the learned counsel for the

¶48

children, who are the contesting respondents in the review

¶49

petitions contended that the review petitions are not

¶50

sustainable in sofaras there is no error apparent error on

¶51

¶52

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 &
RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019

¶53

the face of records. This court has considered both the

¶54

writ petitions and disposed it of, by a detailed judgment. It was contended that the attempt of the petitioner is reagitate the issues that were decided and also to reopen the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision reported in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar 2006(1) SCC 509, to contend that the issues already agitated and decided on merits cannot be re-opened under the guise of a review. It was further contended that pursuant to the common judgment of this court, the second respondent has paid the amounts except two payments and the third respondent has no means to pay and he has not paid his portion of the payment. Since the parties have already acted upon the judgment and paid the money payable by each to the extent they possible, a review is not possible at this point

¶55

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 & RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019 6

¶56

of time, it was contended. This submission is opposed by

¶57

the learned counsel for the father contending that maintenance is still due. To support the above contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in ( State of Nagaland Vs. Toulvi Kibami) 2003 (8) SCC 671.

¶58

A perusal of the common judgment clearly shows

¶59

that though the specific prayer in WP(C)No.28406/2019,

¶60

was to quash the proceedings of the Appellate Authority to

¶61

the extent it declined maintenance from 29.05.2017 and

¶62

the further prayer to declare that the father is entitled for arrears of maintenance from the date of institution of the proceedings it was not considered by this court. This prayer was not considered by this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the first sentence in the common judgment, wherein it is stated that

¶63

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 & RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019 7

¶64

¶65

contending that the amount due under the same order has not been paid. This factual mistake seems to have been

¶66

carried forward in the remaining portion of the judgment, whereby the discussion of this court was confined to whether the amount is paid or not, is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶67

It seems that the learned counsel for the

¶68

petitioner is justified in so contending. The question whether the father ought to have been granted

¶69

maintenance from the date of application was not considered by this court. Though, it is seen from the

¶70

records that common judgment was dictated in open court and possibly it could have been pointed out by both sides, I cannot find fault with the parties alone.

¶71

Having considered this, I feel that the common

¶72

¶73

RP NO. 512 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 8/2021 &
RP NO. 475 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 28406/2019

¶74

judgment to the extent of the non consideration of the

stands allowed.

opportunity to both sides to advance arguments on it. Judgment in WP(C)No.28406/2019 is set aside. Parties shall get ready for hearing.

¶80

There is nothing on record to review the judgment in

¶81

WP(C)No.8 of 2021. Dismissal of WP(C)No.8/2021 stands confirmed and RP No.512 of 2021 is closed.

¶82

¶83

Heard in part. Post for further hearing on

21.02.2022.

sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, v. the District Collector

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

Vinod Kumar M Vs C.J. Chandra Bose

Sanoop.K Vs Jafeer.T.K

The President, Vs Sreekumar

B.Mohammed Jamal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

S.L. Arun Vs Biju Prabhakar