Kerala High Court
Radhamani vs Sub Collector/Tribunal For The ... on 15 March, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
RADHAMANI
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, DREAMS, KARIPAL PARAMBA,
NELLICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 016.
BY ADV P.T.MOHANKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR/TRIBUNAL FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE
OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020.
2 SAROJINI AMMA
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O. LATE CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, ASHIS MANSION, M.K.
SEKHARAN NAIR ROAD, NELLICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673 016.
3 JUSTIN 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
DHEERAJ A.S - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020
-2-
JUDGMENT
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.
2. 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 3rd respondent, she has been living separately from the 3 rd respondent for many years. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is now residing with the 3rd 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 WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020 -3- 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 3rd 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 3rd 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.
3. 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 WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020 -4- sufficient income to comply with the terms of Ext.P7 order. It is submitted that the fact that the 2nd respondent had settled some property in favour of the 3rd respondent is not a valid ground to hold that the 2nd 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.
4. 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 WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020 -5- circumstances of the 2nd respondent, the undertaking given by the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2 nd respondent, settlement of property by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd 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.
5. Therefore, Ext.P7 order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the 1st 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 WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020 -6- placed before the Tribunal by any authority, it would be open for them to apply to the Tribunal for copies of the same.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE uu 15.03.2024 WP(C) NO. 2655 OF 2020 -7- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2655/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED 19.3.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER-STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P-1, DATED 25.8.16.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNEMNT DEED EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED 27.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WPC NO.5407/2017 DATED 20.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WPC NO.7776/2019, DATED 8.4.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DIRECTING MAINTENANCE, DATED 18.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, DATED 12.12.2019.