Dismissed

Kunjimalu v. Balagangadharan

Kerala HC20 Jun 2023WP(C)/2090/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a senior citizen challenging an order of the Maintenance Tribunal regarding maintenance. Since she has an alternative statutory appeal remedy under Section 16 of the Act, the Court refrained from entertaining the Article 226 petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by statutory appeal.

Kunjimalu Vs Balagangadharan — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2090 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUNJIMALU

¶8

AGED 77 YEARS

¶9

W/O. LATE PALLATHU VEETTIL VASU, C/O. ANIYANKUTTY,
KALAPURAKKAL, H.NO. T.C. 55354, P.O. AYYANTHOL,
PUTHUR KARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680003

¶10

BY ADVS.P.JAYARAM
P.B.AJOY
K.R.PAUL
ARJUN P.P.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 BALAGANGADHARAN AGED 45 YEARS

¶13

S/O. LATE PALLATHU VEETTIL VASU, PO. KOTTAPPURAM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679518

¶14

2 GANESHKUMAR AGED 44 YEARS

¶15

S/O. LATE PALLATHU VEETTIL VASU, PO. KOTTAPPURAM,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679518

¶16

3 GEETHADEVI AGED 48 YEARS

¶17

D/O. LATE PALLATHU VEETTIL VASU, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN,
PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PO. KOTTAPPURAM, KARIMPUZHA-II,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679518

¶18

4 GANGADEVI AGED 47 YEARS

¶19

D/O. LATE PALLATHU VEETTIL VASU, W/O. ANIYANKUTTY,
KALAPURAKKAL, H.NO. T.C. 55354, P.O. AYYANTHOL,
PUTHUR KARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680003

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C)No.2090/2023

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of June,2023

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext P1 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Ottappalam.

¶26

The petitioner's case is that she is a senior

¶27

citizen. She had filed an application before the Tribunal, seeking maintenance from the respondents – her children. The Tribunal had initially passed Ext P2 order, permitting the petitioner to recover maintenance from the respondents. Subsequently, when Ext P4 application was filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext P1 order, has set aside Ext P2 order. Ext P1 is patently wrong and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.

¶28

Heard; Sri.P. Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶29

Indisputably, the petitioner is a senior citizen. She is aggrieved by Ext P1 order passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.2090/2023

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

An order passed by the Tribunal against a Senior Citizen is appealable under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

¶33

Act, 2007 (in short, ‘Act’). Thus, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy.

¶34

6. In the light of the alternative statutory remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies, as provided under the Act.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

DST/20.06.23

W.P.(C)No.2090/2023

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2022 IN` `KDIS: H-1824/21 ON THE FILES OF THE` `MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB DIVISIONAL` `MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM. WITH A COPY OF` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS PRODUCED HEREWITH.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/10/2019 IN`
	`KDIS:H-1790/19 ON THE FILES OF THE` `MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB DIVISIONAL` `MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM. COPY OF ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION OF EXT P2 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN THE` `ORDER DATED 5/10/2019 IN KDIS:H-1790/19 ON` `THE FILES OF THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB` `DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM. COPY OF` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P3 IS PRODUCED` `HEREWITH.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO ENHANCE THE` `MAINTENANCE BY ALTERING THE ORDER DATED` `5/10/2019 IN KDIS:H-1790/19 ON THE FILES OF` `THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB DIVISIONAL` `MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM. COPY OF ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION OF EXT P4 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH.`

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

Kunjimalu v. Balagangadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjimalu v. Balagangadharan

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

Binu.T Vs Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Binu C. T. Vs the General Manager

Rohini Cable Network Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Mumthas, Vs the Ottapalam Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd,.

K.P. Noushad Vs Raveendran. K

Arunkumar S. Vs 1. People’S Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.51.