Allowed

Dr. Surya Mol Pankajakshan, v. the Maintenance Tribunal & Sub Collector

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024WP(C)/21874/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stepmother obtained a maintenance order from the Thrissur Maintenance Tribunal after an identical application was dismissed by the Alappuzha Tribunal. The High Court held there was no fresh cause of action and set aside the Thrissur order, without deciding the 'relative' definition question.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur directing maintenance payment was set aside.

Dr. Surya Mol Pankajakshan, Vs the Maintenance… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024/23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21874 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. SURYA MOL PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O ARAVIND B.K., SREEKRISHNA, MRA-B72, VINAYAKA NAGAR, KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695017

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.J.G.SYAMNATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB COLLECTOR, THRISSUR SUB DIVISION, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶11

2 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶12

3 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001

¶13

4 RADHAMANI, C/O THANKAMMA SAHADEVAN, MANDAKAMKUNNATHU VEEDU, MULLOORKARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680583.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of March , 2024

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the 1^st respondent-Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur.

¶21

The 4^th respondent, who is step mother of the petitioner, filed a complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha for maintenance of ₹1,500/- per month and a consolidated amount of ₹4 lakhs. The 4^th respondent contended that she lived with the father of the petitioner and took care of his requirements for a considerable period of time. After petitioner's father passed away, there is nobody else to look after the 4^th respondent and the petitioner being the step daughter, she is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha considered the

¶22

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

application of the 4^th respondent and dismissed the application as per Ext.P3 order.

¶25

The petitioner submits that inspite of the dismissal by the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha of the application filed by the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent filed yet another application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur. The Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur passed an order directing the petitioner to pay ₹1,500/per month as maintenance to the 4^th respondent. The petitioner states that the petitioner would not fall under the definition of “relative” as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner, therefore, is not liable to pay maintenance to the 4^th respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 order dated 09.06.2023.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

The petitioner states that Exts.P4 and P5 are highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is not a relative of the 4^th respondent. Furthermore, after suffering an order from one Maintenance Tribunal, suppressing the said fact, the 4^th respondent could not have approached another Tribunal of different territorial jurisdiction and obtain an order. On that ground alone, Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Though notice was issued and served on the 4^th respondent, there is no appearance for the 4^th respondent. 6. Government Pleader entered appearance and submitted that the question whether an applicant can file applications under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in different Tribunals is a matter that has to be considered.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

In the facts of the case, it is evident that the 4^th respondent has initially filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha. The facts and grounds urged by the 4^th respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha and the facts and grounds urged by the petitioner before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur are one and the same. The specific case of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent has obtained order from the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur suppressing the material fact that the 4^th respondent has suffered an order from the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha.

¶34

Pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that Ext.P3 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, Alappuzha was passed on 21.03.2023. Within one month the petitioner preferred subsequent application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur on 14.04.2023. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order on 12.05.2023. There is nothing on record to indicate that the 4^th respondent had a subsequent cause of action to maintain an application

¶35

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

before the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, I find that Ext.P4

¶39

order of the Maintenance Tribunal, Thrissur is

¶40

unsustainable. Ext.P4 is therefore set aside.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.21874/2023

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21874/2023

¶48

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶49

Exhibit-P1	A TRUE COPY	OF THE MARRIAGE
	CERTIFICATE OF	THE FATHER OF THE
	PETITIONER AND DATED 05-08-2019	THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2	A TRUE COPY OF OF THE FATHER DATED 13-01-2022	THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P3	A TRUE COPY OF RESPONDENT DATED	THE ORDER OF THE 3RD 21-03-2023
Exhibit-P4	A TRUE COPY OF 05-2023 ISSUED B	THE ORDER DATED 12- Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5	A TRUE COPY OF 06-2023 OF THE 2	THE ORDER DATED 09- ND RESPONDENT.

Dr. Surya Mol Pankajakshan, v. the Maintenance Tribunal & Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Surya Mol Pankajakshan, v. the Maintenance Tribunal & Sub Collector

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

Unneenkutty Parayil, Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

K. Baiju, Vs the Chairman & Managing Director

Jalaja Kumari.G.S. Vs Veena.J.K.

M/S. Yenfor Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Divya Vs the Manager

Induvalsan K C, Vs P N B Housing Finance Ltd.