Partly allowed

Manikandan v. 1. the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad

Kerala HC30 Nov 2022WP(C)/23624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Maintenance Tribunal order awarding Rs.18,000/- per month maintenance against the statutory ceiling. The Court upheld the legal cap of Rs.10,000/-, modified the impugned order, and directed continued payment of the maximum limit subject to default proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Maintenance Tribunal order awarding Rs.18,000/- is modified to direct payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, the statutory maximum. The interim stay of Rs.10,000/- is continued.

Manikandan Vs 1. the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue… — 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 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23624 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MANIKANDAN

¶8

AGED 46 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, NAALU KETTU, PERINCHERI HOUSE, PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN – 678688

¶9

2 MOHANKUMAR

¶10

AGED 53 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, NAALU KETTU, PERINCHERI HOUSE, PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678688

¶11

BY ADVS.K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE SOORAJ KRISHNAN K.V.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678001

¶14

2 VELAYUDHAN NAIR AGED 86 YEARS, NAALU KETTU, PERINCHERI HOUSE, PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678688

¶15

3 RADHAMANI

¶16

AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, 45/190/2A, NMDC COLONY, EAST ANANDBAGH, MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD., PIN – 500047

¶17

W.P.(C.) No. 23624/2022

¶18

¶19

4 SHOBHANA

¶20

AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, SREELAKSHMI RAGAM, KIZHAKETHARA, PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678688

¶21

5 MURALEEDHARAN AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, PALAZHI HOUSE, PUTHUKKODU, KANNANNUR, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678702

¶22

6 THANKAMANI @ OMANA AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESHMA NILAYAM, EAST THARA, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678702

¶23

7 RAJESHWARI AGED 42 YEARS W/O. VISWANATHAN, 11/547, PRANAVAM, RAGHAV AVENUE, AALAMPALLAM, KALLEPPULLI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678005

¶24

R1 BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C.) No. 23624/2022

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The controversy involved in this case has already been summarised in the order of this Court dated 25.07.2022. The same reads as under:-

¶30

“It is a classic case where on account of non maintenance of Velayudhan Nair by six children was compelled to approach the Maintenance Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad by submitting that he was interested in living with the children, but they were not maintaining and had to bear the expenses at present in hospital and also additional expenses for his treatment. The Tribunal vide interim order dated 30.4.2022 directed the appropriate parties to make payment of Rs.5,000/- per month for cost and other expenses and thereafter the matter was proceeded and heard after giving opportunities of hearing to all the persons. As per the order, all the siblings have been ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- each to their father before 15^th day of every month and Smt.Rajeshwari and Smt.Thankamani, the daughters, have also been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- each for those months when father is not residing with them.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it amounts to Rs.18,000/- whereas as per the provisions of Section 9, it cannot exceed more than Rs.10,000/-.

¶32

W.P.(C.) No. 23624/2022

¶33

¶34

Issue notice before admission to respondents 2 to 7 by by registered post post. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent.

¶35

There shall be interim stay provided all the petitioners altogether pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in proportion.

¶36

Post this matter on 12.10.2022.”

¶37

Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides that the maintenance cannot exceed Rs.10,000/- per month and the same reads as under:-

¶38

“9. Order for maintenance.— (1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.

¶39

(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government which shall not exceed ten thousand rupees per month.”

¶40

The Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- and this Court

¶41

interdicted the balance amount by order extracted above.

¶42

W.P.(C.) No. 23624/2022

¶43

¶44

Since the Maintenance Officer has already reported to

¶45

this Court through learned Government Pleader that the second respondent is receiving the maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, petitioners shall continue to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent. In case of any default, Maintenance Officer shall be entitled to proceed on behalf of the second respondent/complainant. The impugned order of the Maintenance Tribunal is modified to the aforementioned extent.

¶46

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

DCS/03.11.2022

W.P.(C.) No. 23624/2022

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPIES OF CASH PAID BILLS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.

¶56

EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P2. EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P3 . EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P4.

Manikandan v. 1. the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. 1. the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad

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

Varthamanam Ventures (P) Ltd., Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Homestead Projects and Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs the Assistant P.F Commissioner

Central Board of Trusties Vs M/S. Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd.

The Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

The Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co.Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner