Kerala High Court
Rabiya vs The Presiding Officer on 3 July, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:49371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 191 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.25900 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
UMAYIRA. K., AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. ABOO, THAIKKANDI HOUSE,
P.O. MATTANNUR, IRITTY ROAD,
KANNUR- 670702.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SHRI.NIDHEESH T.P
SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.ASSYA, W/O. LATE POCKER HAJI,
KALATHIL HOUSE, VAYANTHODU,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670702.
2 SAJEER K., S/O. LATE POCKER HAJI,
KALATHIL HOUSE, VAYANTHODU,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR- 670702
3 RABIYA, W/O. T.P. HANEEFA, VANIYEDATH
HOUSE, KALOROAD, MATTANNUR P.O.,
KANNUR- 670702, PIN - 682018
4 ABDUL NAZAR. K., S/O.POCKER HAJI,
MALABAR COTTAGE, KEEZHUR P.O. IRITTY,
KANNUR- 670702
5 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNA-SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY, (TRIBUNAL UNDER THE
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
2
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
SENIOR CITIZEN ACT, 2007) OFFICE OF THE
SUB COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670101
BY ADVS
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
SRI N B SUNIL NATH-GP
SRI R PARTHASARATHY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.197/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 197 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.18573 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
RABIYA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. T.P.HANEEFA,
VANIYEDATH HOUSE, KALOROAD, MATTANNUR
P.O., KANNUR-670 702
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SMT.SEEMA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
SUB COLLECTOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 101
2 K.ASSYA, W/O. LATE POCKER HAJI, KALATHIL HOSUE,
VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702
3 UMAYIRA.K., W/O. AABU, THAIKKANDI HOUSE, P.O.
MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI VILLAGE, KANNUR-670 702
4 ABDULL NAZAR K., S/O. POCKER HAJI, MALABAR
COTTAGE, KEEZHUR, P.O. IRITTY, KANNUR-670 702
5 SAJEER K., S/O. LATE POCKER HAJI, KALATHIL
HOUSE, VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702
BY ADVS
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
4
SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH - GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.191/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
5
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.191/2025, 197/2025] Devan Ramachandran These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.25900/2021 and 18573/2021.
2. The appellants are the writ petitioners in the afore petitions and they filed them challenging the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, dated 05.08.2021, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to "Act" for short).
3. Admittedly, the impugned order relates to the welfare of the senior citizen - Smt.K.Assya, who is 75 years in age; and the appellants, along with one of their siblings, have been directed to pay her Rs.10,000/- per month each as monthly maintenance.
4. The appellants challenge the order on the ground that even though they have been mulcted with the liability as afore, 2025:KER:49371 WA 191/25 & 197/25 6 the Tribunal has left the 4th sibling, namely Sri.Sajeer, from any such responsibility and further that, as per Section 9 of the 'Act', the maximum maintenance that can be favoured to the senior citizen, from all her children, is Rs.10,000/-.
5. We notice that the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the Writ Petitions, finding Smt.K.Assya to be requiring more than Rs.30,000/- per month as expenses; and thus holding that, since the petitioners and other siblings are refusing to take care of her, the Maintenance Tribunal has acted within its powers.
6. Sri.P.U.Shailajan - learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.191/2025 and Sri.Parthasarathy - learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.197/2025, reiterated that the order of the Maintenance Tribunal is wrong because it has left out one of the siblings; and further that no amount more than Rs.10,000/- could have been ordered in total in favour of the senior citizen.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as afore on 02.06.2025, we directed the learned Government Pleader 2025:KER:49371 WA 191/25 & 197/25 7 to obtain a report from the jurisdictional Social Justice Officer, as to the present condition of the senior citizen, her requirements, desires and other relevant inputs.
8. The learned Government Pleader has now filed a Memo, producing the Report, wherein, after enumerating the assets of the appellants, it is recorded that the senior citizen requires a full-time Home Nurse, who will have to be paid at least Rs.25,000/-; but that she has been denied this now because her children, including the appellants, are refusing to honour any amount.
9. We do not propose to deal with the Report qua the appellants or their assets and income; but, suffice to say that they are tolerably well off. In contradistinction, the senior citizen appears to be bedridden, requiring full-time assistance of a Home Nurse, but has been now denied this on account of lack of resources.
10. The Social Justice Officer has reported that the appointment of a full-time Home Nurse would require a minimum 2025:KER:49371 WA 191/25 & 197/25 8 of Rs.25,000/- per month; and viewed from that perspective, the amount now ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal, in its order sought to be assailed, is a mere Rs.5,000/- more. The senior citizen indubitably would require several other necessities, including medicine, food, nutrition etc.; and the cost for such would be much in excess of what has been now ordered to be paid by the appellants and their other siblings.
11. That said, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the senior citizen is now living with her son, who has not been specifically mulcted with liability by the Maintenance Tribunal. However, this is evidently because the mother is staying with him and is being looked after by him and his family. We cannot find error in this.
12. Coming to Section 9 of the 'Act', the Maintenance Tribunal obtains jurisdiction to mulct children or relatives, as the case may be, to pay maintenance to a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself/herself, if they refuse to do so. It is 2025:KER:49371 WA 191/25 & 197/25 9 perspicuous that Section 9(2) thereof provides that the maximum maintenance amount that can be ordered by the Tribunal shall not exceed Rs.10,000/- per month; but this does not carry or employ a covenant or restriction that such a figure is the sole entitled to the senior citizen. When Section 9(1) of the Act commences saying that children or relatives are liable to maintain the senior citizen under certain specified conditions, it can only be construed to mean that each of them are liable to pay, though subject to the maximum as fixed in Section 9(2). This is how the learned Judge has understood the provision and we affirm it.
In the afore circumstances, these Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE SAS/RR