K.Meena Devi vs G.Lakshmi

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.29026 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

             K.MEENA DEVI
             AGED 91 YEARS
             W/O.LATE G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
             RESIDING AT MEENA VILAS (KAILAS), T.C.13/83,
             PETTA, PALLIMUKKU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 024

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
             SHRI.SUMEEN S.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      G.LAKSHMI
             AGED 63 YEARS
             W/O.KRISHNA KUMAR,
             RESIDING AT MEENA VILAS (KAILAS, T.C.13/83,
             PETTA, PALLIMUKKU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 024

      2      KRISHNA KUMAR
             AGED 64 YEARS
             RESIDING AT MEENA VILAS (KAILAS, T.C.13/83,
             PETTA, PALLIMUKKU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 024


OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP SRI.BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).29026/2020
                                       2




                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein is a 91 year old applicant who had approached the authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. The apprehension of the petitioner herein is that, since she is aged, she would like to have the matter decided finally by the Maintenance Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. It seems that the application was filed only in October 2020. Even though the statutory period limit of 90 days with further time limit for extension has been provided in the Statute, learned counsel for the petitioner justified his prayer for a direction on the ground that the petitioner is aged 91 years.

5. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition itself with a direction to the third respondent to take up Ext.P1 application as expeditiously as possible from the date of service of notice on the contesting respondents and pass appropriate order even before the statutory period prescribed under the Statute.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

                                                 SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna                                                 JUDGE
 W.P(C).29026/2020
                              3




                         APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY

THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE ACT 2007