P.U.Sreedevi @ P.U.Sreedevi Amma vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 17112 Ker

W.P(C).25918/2020
                                   1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 25918 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

             P.U.SREEDEVI @ P.U.SREEDEVI AMMA
             AGED 87 YEARS
             W/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PALLIYATH UNIPPILADATH
             KOTHAKULAM, PUNNAKUNNU P. O., WEST ELERI, VELLARIKUND,
             KASARGODE - 671535, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND - SON P. U.
             SREEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR,
             RESIDING AT PALLIYATH UNIPPILADATH KOTHAKULAM,
             PUNNAKUNNU P. O., WEST ELERI, VELLARIKUND, KASARGODE -
             671 535.

             BY ADVS.
             K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
             SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
             SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE
             MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR
             CITIZEN'S ACT), CIVIL STATION KASARGODE, PIN - 671121.

     2       SUB COLLECTOR
             (PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE
             MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR
             CITIZEN'S ACT), KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN -
             671121.

     3       SARASWATHY P. U.
             D/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KALICHALADUKKAM, THAYANNUR P. O.,
             KALAYANTHADAM, KASARGODE, PIN - 671531.

     4       PRABHAKARAN
             RESIDING AT KALICHALADUKKAM, THAYANNUR P. O.,
             KALAYANTHADAM, KASARGODE, PIN - 671531.
 W.P(C).25918/2020
                                  2

     5       SAVITHRI P. U.
             D/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT POOKUNNATH, RAMATHALI
             P. O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670308.

     6       VILASINI P. U.
             W/O. KODOTH RAVINDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KODOTH HOUSE,
             KARIPODY PALLIKARA, UDMA P. O., HOSDURG, KASARGODE
             DISTRICT, PIN - 671319.

     7       KODOTH RAVINDRAN NAIR
             RESIDING AT KODOTH HOUSE, KARIPODY PALLIKARA, UDMA P.
             O., HOSDURG, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671319.

     8       THE MANAGER
             KERALA GRAMIN BANK - KALICHANADUKKAM BRANCH,
             KALICHANADUKKAM P. O., KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN -
             671314.

             BY ADV SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE



OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP BIMAL K NATH




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).25918/2020
                                    3



                              JUDGMENT

The Writ Petitioner is a senior citizen and the application is filed

through next friend-son on a premise that, she is bedridden and

incapacitated both physically and mentally to conduct the proceedings

herself. According to her, in her matrimonial relationship with late

Madhavan Nair, six children were born, including son Sreedharan and

respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition. According to her, she was in

possession of some property that belonged to the husband, devolved on

herself and her son. They sold the properties and the amounts due were

shared. With the funds available with the writ petitioner, she purchased

an item of property and deposited the remaining amount in FD in bank.

Though, she initially stayed with one of her daughter, due to alleged ill-

treatment, she shifted her residence and is now stated to be residing

with the son. According to her, the interest due from the FD is remitted

in her SB account, which is utilized for her personal expenses. Her

allegation is that the original FD receipts and title deeds are still

maintained by the respondents and she requested that, they may be

directed to return the title deeds and the FD receipts. Alleging that, she

was entitled to be maintained by all the children together, she moved

the second respondent/Maintenance Tribunal, Kasaragod under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. W.P(C).25918/2020

2. The respondents appeared and raised a contention that the

son Sreedharan was attempting to influence the mother and to

misappropriate the amounts in FD. It was also stated that, the

allegation that, they were in possession of the FD receipts was false and

they were not with them. After considering the materials on record and

conducting a personal visit by the Tribunal to the petitioner, the

authority held that the son was properly maintaining the mother. The

prayer sought in the complaint submitted by the senior citizen was to

return the FD receipts for a sum of Rs.4.20 lakhs in the name of the

complainant and the joint passbook retained by respondent No.5 and to

return a sum of Rs.19 lakhs allegedly withdrawn from the account of the

complainant misappropriated by the petitioner.

3. Detailed objections were filed by the respondents. Authority,

after conducting enquiry passed Ext.P3 order. It was held that, the

Tribunal was satisfied that the mother was entitled for protection and at

present, son Sreedharan was maintaining her properly. It was also

found by the authority that the apprehension of the respondents was

that Sreedharan may influence the mother to procure the FD, prevents

the respondents from handing over the FD receipts to her. It was also

found that, she is getting a sum of Rs.6920/- as interst for the amount in

deposit and Sreedharan was directed to ensure that, she continues to

get maintenance. However, it was contended that the FD receipts need

not be transferred by the respondents at present and the expenses W.P(C).25918/2020

required for the mother for her treatment shall be maintained by the

respondents jointly along with Sreedharan. It was also directed that, all

the other children shall meet the mother and Sreedharan shall not cause

any obstruction to it.

4. Aggrieved by the above, to the extent that there was no

direction in relation to the assets and FD, the complainant filed an

appeal before the Appellate Authority as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the order

passed by the authority, after giving reasonable opportunity of being

heard to both sides. The authority confirmed the finding of the Tribunal

that senior citizen was being properly maintained by Sreedharan. It was

also found that the amount utilized by the said Sreedharan was utilized

for the welfare of the mother. Though, he had a case that, medical

expenses were on the higher side, the documents produced by son

Sreedharan only showed that, an expense around Rs.1415/- was

incurred per month. Hence, there was a direction that, in case excess

amount was required, all the children shall equally contribute. All other

requests were found to be outside the scope of the Act and the Court

found that, no further direction need be given and the Appellate

Tribunal need not interfere in the remaining findings by the authority.

5. Contending that the above finding, to the extent of holding

that other issues relating to the tile deed and the return of FD was

beyond the scope of the Act, is challenged in the present Writ Petition. W.P(C).25918/2020

6. Heard both sides and examined the records.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was

that, the power conferred on the Tribunal includes the power to

adjudicate such ancillary issues also. There cannot be any dispute that

the authority of the Tribunal is limited, but definitely they are competent

to go into ancillary issues. Regarding the grievance of the petitioner

that, no direction was issued regarding the return of the FD receipts

and title deeds, this Court has to take note of the fact that the

respondents have specifically denied the possession of the documents.

There is no convincing evidence to show that the respondents are in

possession of the FDs and title deed, though the Tribunal has made an

observation that, apprehending that Sreedharan may persuade the

mother to part with the FD in his favour, the respondents are not

returning the FD receipts. Suffice to hold that, it is for the mother to

decide as to how the amount in deposit should devolve after her lifetime.

This is a discretion, in which the Tribunal has not correctly interfered.

Further, the question whether the respondents are in possession of the

FD receipts as well as the other documents is a disputed question of

fact, which has not been completely established either way.

8. Having considered this, I am inclined to hold that, there is no

reason to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority which is

liable to be confirmed.

W.P(C).25918/2020

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the finding of the

Tribunal as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, it is made

clear that, all other issues are left open to be considered in an

appropriately instituted suit, if the petitioner is so advised.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).25918/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25918/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.05.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 05.07.2017 IN REF.NO.B/4859/2017 (1) FILE BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D 7122/2018 DATED 04.02.2019 OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL -KANHANGAD UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZEN'S ACT.

EXHIBIT P4            TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY        THE
                      PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCKSGD/4004/2019-
                      G1 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER
                      THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
                      SENIOR CITIZEN'S ACT.