Partly allowed

Parameshwari v. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Maintenance Tribunal

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP(MD)/22038/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court partially allowed a writ petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance. The court held that maintenance cannot be directed against the petitioner as she was merely a guardian and set aside that direction while sustaining the restraint on property disposal.

What did the court decide?

The direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- as monthly maintenance is set aside.

Parameshwari Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.16193, 16194 & 20170 of 2022

Parameshwari

... Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Maintenance Tribunal, Palani Revenue Division, Dindigul District.

2.Muthu

3.Subbammal

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 08.08.2022 made in Mu.Mu.6158/2022/A2 and set aside the same as illegal.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader for R.1

¶17

Mr.J.Anandkumar for R.2 & R.3

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/6

¶20

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶23

The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of one Karthikeyan. The writ

¶24

petitioner Parameshwari got married to the said Karthikeyan on 29.10.2006. A male child by name Harish was born in the year 2007. On 13.07.2016 the respondents 2 and 3 herein executed settlement deed in favour of their grandson Harish. The writ petitioner was shown as guardian. The settlement deed was also duly registered as Document No. 2549 of 2016 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Vadamadurai.

¶25

While so, even before the execution of the settlement deed, the relationship between the parties had come under strain. The petitioner lodged criminal case in Crime No.305 of 2015 on the file of Eriyodu Police Station and the private respondents have even arrested and remanded to custody. The petitioner has also filed H.M.O.P.No.4 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Vedasandur and divorce was granted in her favour on 11.01.2016.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022

¶29

The respondents 2 and 3 herein moved the first respondent for cancellation of the settlement deed. By the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 the first respondent directed the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/(Rupees Two Thousand only) as maintenance to the private respondents herein. The writ petitioner was also restrained from dealing with the property. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this writ petition as prayed for.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. He pressed for dismissal of writ petition. The learned Special Government Pleader also called upon this Court to sustain the impugned order.

¶32

I carefully considered the rival contentions and the went through the materials on record. Even though the private respondents herein wanted the Maintenance Tribunal to set aside the settlement deed, the Maintenance

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶34

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022

¶35

Tribunal rightly did not grant the said request. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 06.12.2022 in Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021 (Sudesh Chhikara Vs.

¶36

Ramti Devi & another) had held that unless the deed of conveyance contains the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, the document cannot be cancelled. The document in question does not contain any such condition. The Maintenance Tribunal therefore rightly declined to accept the prayer of the private respondents for cancelling the documents. The maintenance Tribunal also erred in giving a direction that the petitioner should not interfere with the rights of the private respondents herein from enjoying the property in question.

¶37

The first respondent also erred in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as monthly maintenance. It is relevant to note that the petitioner is not the transferee. The petitioner was only shown as a guardian for the minor child. Hence, no direction could have been passed against the writ petitioner for payment of maintenance. This part of the impugned order is set aside. However, the first respondent rightly directed the petitioner that she should not deal with the property till the minor child attains majority. This part of the impugned order is sustained. The impugned order is interfered to the extent mentioned above. This writ petition is partly allowed. Even though the writ petition has been partly allowed, the mediation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.22038 of 2022

¶39

proceedings can very well continue. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

07.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga

¶41

¶42

The Principal, Madurai Institute of Social Sciences, (Autonomous) Madurai – 625 002.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶44