Allowed

Shyni. S v. Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents &Senior Citizens (Sub Divisional Magistrate),Kolla

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022WP(C)/18805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this writ petition held that a daughter-in-law is not a 'child' under Section 2(a) nor a 'relative' under Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Consequently, directing her to pay maintenance to her father-in-law was arbitrary and the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Maintenance Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay maintenance was set aside.

Shyni. S Vs Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHYNI. S.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.SEPHERNOSE,RESIDING AT ST.JOSEPH VILASAM,
KARIKUZHY, PADAPPAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM-691 503

¶7

BY ADVS.
PRATHEESH.P
ANJANA KANNATH
T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL FOR THE WELFARE OF PARENTS &SENIOR
CITIZENS (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE),
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013

¶10

2ANTONY,
ANIL BHAVANAM, SEBASTIAN ISLAND, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O.
KOLLAM, PIN: 691 584

¶11

BY ADVS.
R.T.PRADEEP
M.BINDUDAS
K.C.HARISH

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR GP SMT RASHMI K M

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Order dated 11.04.2022 Ext.P1 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordering the petitioner, daughter-in-law, to pay maintenance to the 2^nd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Senior Citizens Act’, for short) has been assailed in this writ petition.

¶18

The facts in brief are that respondent No.2, Antony, preferred a petition before the Maintenance Tribunal against the petitioner, daughter-in-law claiming maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as his son Ajith Kumar, husband of the petitioner had unfortunately died 22.06.2017 while working as a lineman in Electrical Section, Krishnapuram. Petitioner obtained the employment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme and now working as Assistant Cashier. Ajith Kumar while in service had taken a loan from Government employees’ Co-operative Bank for Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) and the entire

¶19

WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022 -3-

¶20

liability to pay has been fastened upon the petitioner. An amount of Rs.13,700/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred only) is being deducted from the salary towards the payment of the loan instalment. Another loan was taken from the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation and the outstanding due was Rs.1,95,700/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand only) as per the notice dated 24.10.2017 Ext.P3.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner had also taken an LIC Policy and on demise respondent No.2 had taken the entire amount. Petitioner do not fall within the definition of a 'relative' under Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In support of the contention the Division Bench Judgment of Honourable High Court of Bombay in Sheetal Devang Shah Vs. Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Others (2022 SCC Online Bombay 1068) has been relied upon.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022 -4-

¶23

There is no representation of respondent No.2 despite service.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶25

The order of the Tribunal reflects that the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) in the account of respondent No.2. It would be apt to re-produce the definition of ‘Children’ in Section 2(a) and ‘relative’ in Section 2(g):

¶26

Section 2(a): “Children” is defined and includes son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter but does not include a minor.

¶27

Section 2(g): “relative” to mean any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death.”

¶28

From the perusal of the definitions extracted above, children includes son, daughter, grand son and grand daughter, but there is no reference of daughter-in-law.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022 -5-

¶30

This aspect has not been noticed by the Maintenance Tribunal while passing the order. In my view, once the daughter-in-law does not comes under the definition of Section 2(a), the petition for maintenance filed against the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly the impugned order suffers from illegality and arbitrariness much less repugnancy and the same is set aside. Writ petition stands allowed.

¶31

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶32

vv

¶33

WP(C) NO. 18805 OF 2022 -6-

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18805/2022

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K
DIS/418/2020/C DT.11.4.2022 WITH
TRASLATION
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.A.245 DATED
3.3.2022 WITH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FROM THE
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.DATED
24.10.2017
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM
KSFE EDAPPALLY COTTAH BRANCH TO THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, HARIPAD
DT.17.11.2017.

Shyni. S v. Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents &Senior Citizens (Sub Divisional Magistrate),Kolla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyni. S v. Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents &Senior Citizens (Sub Divisional Magistrate),Kolla

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

Joy K.S. Vs Sri.Ranjay Mooshahary

Subash U. Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar C.P Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

Yousuf S.K. Vs the District Labour Officer

K.M.Mohammed Kutty Vs the State Transport Commissioner