Radhamani v. Sub Collector/Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Kerala HC15 Mar 2024WP(C)/2655/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging a Maintenance Tribunal order. The Court set aside the order on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider the petitioner's financial status, the third respondent's undertaking to pay maintenance, and property settlements, remitting the matter with a three-month time limit.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order set aside; Matter remitted to 1st Respondent Tribunal for fresh orders within three months.

Radhamani Vs Sub Collector/Tribunal for the… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RADHAMANI

¶8

AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, DREAMS, KARIPAL PARAMBA,
NELLICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 016.
BY ADV P.T.MOHANKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1SUB COLLECTOR/TRIBUNAL FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE
OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶11

2SAROJINI AMMA
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O. LATE CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, ASHIS MANSION, M.K.
SEKHARAN NAIR ROAD, NELLICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673 016.

¶12

3JUSTIN ANANDAKUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. SAMUEL, ASHIS MANSION, M.K. SEKHARAN NAIR ROAD,
NELLICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
SRI.K.V.SREERAJ

¶13

DHEERAJ A.S - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order of the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, through which, the petitioner has been found liable to pay to the 2^nd respondent a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month from November 2019, and also to pay the arrears of maintenance in terms of earlier orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of the 2^nd respondent . It is submitted that the petitioner was married to the 3^rd respondent and that, on account of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, she has been living separately from the 3^rd respondent for many years. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent is now residing with the 3^rd respondent and that she had even settled valuable property belonging to her upon the 3^rd respondent. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P3 document registered at

¶20

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶21

S.R.O, Chevayur. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent is also receiving certain amount as pension. It is submitted that the petitioner has no means of income to comply with the terms of Ext.P7 order. It is submitted that the petitioner is struggling to make both ends meet and to bring up two daughters born out of the relationship between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the entire litigation is at the instance of the 3^rd respondent, owing to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent had also undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted that these aspects had not been considered by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P7 order.

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner that she has no income to comply with the terms of Ext.P7 order is absolutely untenable. It is submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are in possession of certain documents which would clearly indicate that the petitioner is having

¶23

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶24

-4-

¶25

sufficient income to comply with the terms of Ext.P7 order. It is submitted that the fact that the 2^nd respondent had settled some property in favour of the 3^rd respondent is not a valid ground to hold that the 2^nd respondent is not entitled to maintenance. It is submitted that the pension amount received by the 2^nd respondent is meager and not sufficient to sustain herself. It is also pointed out that the earlier order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5470/2017, and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment, refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the only relief granted to the petitioner was the right to approach the Tribunal for modification/variation of the order. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the writ petition is only to be dismissed.

¶26

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, I am of the view that Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside. A reading of Ext.P7 order indicates that the financial circumstances of the petitioner, financial

¶27

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶28

circumstances of the 2^nd respondent, the undertaking given by the 3^rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent, settlement of property by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the 3^rd respondent etc, have not been considered by the Tribunal while issuing Ext.P7 order. In my view, these are matters which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P7 order. Similarly, the case of respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner has sufficient income to comply with the terms of Ext.P7 order is also a matter to be considered by the Tribunal.

¶29

Therefore, Ext.P7 order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the 1^st respondent for passing fresh orders taking note of the observations made by this Court as above. Both sides are permitted to produce additional documents before the 1^st respondent Tribunal, to prove their respective claims. The 1^st respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If either side requires copies of any documents or reports

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶31

-6-

¶32

placed before the Tribunal by any authority, it would be open for

¶33

them to apply to the Tribunal for copies of the same.

¶34

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

 Sd/-

¶36

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

15.03.2024

WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020

¶41

-7-

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2655/2020

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `TRUE COPY`	`OF`	`THE`	`COMPLAINT FILED BY`	`THE`
	`2ND` `RES` `RESPONDENT`	`PON` `, D`	`DENT` `ATED`	`BEFORE` `THE` `19.3.2016.`	`IST`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2` `TRUE COP` `FILED BY` `DATED 25.8`	`Y` `THE` `.16`	`OF` `RESP` `.`	`THE COUNTER-STATE` `ONDENT TO EXHIBIT`	`MENT` `P-1,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `TRUE COP`	`Y`	`OF`	`THE ASSIGNEMNT`	`DEED`
	`EXECUTED` `FAVOUR OF`	`BY` `THE`	`THE` `3RD`	`2ND RESPONDENT` `RESPONDENT.`	`IN`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `TRUE COPY` `IST RESPON`	`OF` `DEN`	`THE` `T, D`	`ORDER PASSED BY` `ATED 27.8.2016.`	`THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5` `TRUE COPY` `IN WPC NO.`	`OF` `540`	`THE` `7/20`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS C` `17 DATED 20.12.2017`	`OURT` `.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6` `TRUE COPY` `IN WPC NO.`	`OF` `777`	`THE` `6/20`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS C` `19, DATED 8.4.2019.`	`OURT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7` `TRUE COPY` `IST RESPO` `DATED 18.1`	`OF` `NDE` `0.2`	`THE` `NT` `019.`	`ORDER PASSED BY` `DIRECTING MAINTENA`	`THE` `NCE,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8` `TRUE COPY` `BRANCH` `CORPORATIO`	`OF` `MAN` `N,`	`THE` `AGER` `DATE`	`COMMUNICATION FROM` `,` `LIFE` `INSUR` `D 12.12.2019.`	`THE` `ANCE`

Radhamani v. Sub Collector/Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamani v. Sub Collector/Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

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

P.K. Pushpan Vs Union of India (Uoi)

M/S. Sastha Gold Works Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Kamala Bai.v Vs the State of Kerala

Wilson Mathew (Pan AILPM2852M), Vs the Income Tax Officer

A.Sulfikar Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Ommen Vs the Addl. Excise Commissioner