Dismissed

Vallikutty v. Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad

Kerala HC10 Nov 2023WP(C)/29970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court held that recovery of retiral benefits is a vested right under succession laws, not an act within the purview of the Maintenance Tribunal, dismissing the challenge to the Tribunals' refusal.

What did the court decide?

Written Petition closed without acceding to the challenge against the Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, liberty granted for other relief.

Vallikutty Vs Appellate Tribunal and District… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29970 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VALLIKUTTY
W/O.LATE KASU
AGED 71 YEARS
KOOTTAMOOCHI HOUSE, PUTHIYANKAM P.O, THRIPPALUR,
ALATHUR, PLAKKAD, PIN - 678545
BY ADVS.
V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
T.R.VISHNU
AMEENA MUHAMMED

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2PALAKKAD MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3JYOTHIMOL S.
D/O.LATE SHIVARAMAN,
POLIMBANKKAD, MADAMPARA, KUNISSERRY P.O,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678688
BY ADVS.
S.RENJITH
P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN(K/581/2005)
S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)(K/211/2006)
K.R.PRATHISH(K/174/2013)
JOEL CHALAMANA(K/001360/2022)
KRISHNA DAS(K/003368/2022)
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO. 29970 OF 2023 2

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner calls into question Exts.P5 and P7 orders of the Statutory Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal respectively, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Act’ for short), on the ground that said Authorities have acted in error, in refusing to act upon her complaint.

¶13

Sri.V.S.Shiraz Bava – learned counsel for the petitioner, however, conceded that his client approached the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal seeking that, half of the retiral benefits of her deceased son be directed to be paid to her by the 3^rd respondent – wife of the deceased; and that the Tribunals have taken the view that this is not within their purview to consider or order. He submitted that his client has now been, therefore, left without any option but to approach this Court because, during the life time of her son - who was not keeping well, she spent all her savings on him and has now been reduced to the state of a virtual destitute. He submitted that since her daughter-in-law is bound under the ‘Act’ to take care of her, the petitioner was without error in having approached the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking that a portion of the retiral benefit of her deceased son be released to her.

¶14

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that, though the Authorities have empathy for the petitioner, her specific prayer cannot be acceded to by them because, it is

¶15

WP(C) NO. 29970 OF 2023 3

¶16

beyond their statutory competence. He explained that, even going by the petitioner’s case, her son was employed in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and that when he died, his retiral benefits became due. He pointed out that since the petitioner is a Class I heir of her deceased – son, she could have certainly approached the said Authority, or invoked other remedies, to claim a portion of the retiral benefits, which she is entitled to. He submitted that this is not something that she ought to have asked under the ‘Act’ because, she gets a vested right otherwise, as the heir of the deceased, to obtain it. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed because, the competent maintenance Authorities cannot help her in this regard at all.

¶17

Sri.K.R.Prathish – learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – daughter-in-law of the petitioner, conceded that upon her husband’s death, the petitioner may have to be construed as his legal heir under law. He argued that, however, these are not issues that the petitioner ought to have raised before the competent Maintenance Officers. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶18

When I evaluate Exts.P5 and P7 - which are the orders impugned, I must say that there is force in the afore recorded submissions of the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose because, when the petitioner asserts to be the heir of her deceased son, her right to claim his retiral benefits does not flow out of the ‘Act’, but from various

¶19

WP(C) NO. 29970 OF 2023 4

¶20

other statutes that cover the field, including the Laws of Succession. Of course, she may have the liberty of moving the Maintenance Officers seeking that the 3rd respondent – her daughter-in-law, maintain her on sufficient reasons; but the proceedings and the impugned orders do not reflect any such plea. She appears to have approached the said Officers squarely seeking that a portion of the retrial benefits of her deceased son be given to her. Obviously, her remedy in this regard will be to move other competent forums appositely, as also the employer of her deceased son.

¶21

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without acceding to the challenge against Exts.P5 and P7; however, leaving every other liberty open to the petitioner, including to move the Maintenance Tribunal for any other relief that she may be entitled to under the ‘Act’; for which purpose, all contentions are left open.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶24

MC/10.11

¶25

WP(C) NO. 29970 OF 2023 5

¶26

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29970/2023

¶27

`PETITION`	`ER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY` `FILED BEF` `HEREWITH`	`OF` `ORE` `AND`	`THE` `2ND` `MARK`	`MT PETITION NO: 88/2020` `RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED` `ED AS EXHIBIT P1.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `HEREWITH`	`OF` `AND`	`THE` `MARK`	`SAID COUNTER IS PRODUCED` `ED AS EXHIBIT P2`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `NO:5/2022` `COURT, PA` `THE SAME`	`OF` `ON` `LAKK` `MAY`	`THE` `THE` `AD I` `BE M`	`PLAINT FILED IN O.S` `FILES OF ADDITIONAL SUB` `S PRODUCED HEREWITH AND` `ARKED AS EXHIBIT P3`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE PE` `MARKED AS`	`OF` `TITI` `EXH`	`THE` `ONER` `IBIT`	`WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED` `IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND` `P4`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY` `HEREWITH` `EXHIBIT P`	`OF` `THE` `AND` `5`	`THE` `2ND` `THE`	`ORDER DATED 11/04/2022` `RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED` `SAME MAY BE MARKED AS`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE PE` `RESPONDEN` `SAME MAY`	`OF` `TITI` `T IS` `BE M`	`THE` `ONER` `PRO` `ARKE`	`APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED` `BEFORE THE 1ST` `DUCED HEREWITH AND THE` `D AS EXHIBIT P6`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `PASSED BY` `HEREWITH` `EXHIBIT P`	`OF` `THE` `AND` `7`	`THE` `1ST` `THE`	`ORDER DATED 11.07.2023` `RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED` `SAME MAY BE MARKED AS`

Vallikutty v. Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallikutty v. Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

Rashida Jabbar Vs Verbster India Surgicals Pvt. Ltd.

Xxxx Vs Yyy

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Joobin. K Vs State of Kerala

Raiju K. Y Vs State of Kerala