Kerala High Court
Menaka vs The Maintenance Tribunal on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 MENAKA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. RAJAN, PARAYAN PARAMBA, KALLEKKAD (P.O),
EDATHARA, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 006.
2 RAMADEVI
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. RAMANKUTTY, KOTAKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
MULANJOOR (P.O.), LAKKIDI PERUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
3 SUSHEELA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. CHENTHAMARA, PATHIKKATTUCHOOLA, NANDHIYODE
(P.O.), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 534.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 101.
2 KALYANI
W/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
3 RAMAKRISHNAN
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR, LAKKIDI PERUR 1
VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678 001.
4 RAMESH KUMAR
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 2
5 RAGHUNATH
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
SMT SHEEJA CS, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 3
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent is an octogenarian. She is the mother of the
petitioners herein as well as respondents 3 to 5. The petitioners herein,
who are the daughters of the 2nd respondent have approached this Court
being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order dated 10.6.2019 by which the Maintenance
Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has ordered
the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per mensem to the 2nd
respondent.
2. The records reveal that in the year 2016, the 2nd respondent
lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent against the party respondents
who are her sons. The matter was compromised and Ext.P2 settlement was
arrived at. The sons agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- p.m. to the mother.
The mother was also held entitled to reside in the house of the 5th
respondent, who is her younger son, for the rest of her life. While so, in
2017, the 2nd respondent again approached the Tribunal and lodged a
complaint under section 23 of the Act contending that the property owned
by the 2nd respondent and acquired as per various title deeds were
assigned to the petitioners in the year 2016 by document Nos.2231/2016,
2232/2016 and 2233/2016 of the Ottappalam SRO on the strength of the
assurance given by the daughters that the 2nd respondent would be taken
care of for the rest of her life. She also contended that after acquiring the
property as aforesaid, the 2nd respondent was totally ignored by her
daughters. She sought for setting aside the documents executed in favour
of her daughters.
3. The respondents filed a detailed objection to the application
filed by the 2nd respondent. They contended that the 2nd respondent has
also instituted a suit as O.S.No.217 of 2018 seeking to set aside the
documents executed by her in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners on
the other hand have filed O.S.No.185/2018 before the Munsiff Court seeking
partition of the properties of late Chamiyar, their father. Those suits are still
pending. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not in good
terms with their brothers and they have persuaded the mother to lodge the
complaint based on frivolous accusations. They would also contend that the
petitioners are residing with their husband and are unemployed and they
are not having the wherewithal to pay the amount as ordered. They
pointed out that the 2nd respondent was residing in a house of her own and
a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs is lying in fixed deposit in her name. She is also
getting a sum of Rs.1000/- each from her sons. Though she is aged 88
years, there are no materials to suggest that the 2nd respondent is sick or
that she is unable to maintain herself.
4. The Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the entire facts,
came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent was entitled to
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- each per mensem and the application
was disposed of accordingly. The above order is under challenge.
5. Sri.Ravi K. Pariyarath, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained. He would refer to the sequence of events and it was argued that
the mother was being maintained by her sons and there was no justification
on the part of the Maintenance Tribunal to order the payment of Rs.1000/-
each per month from the daughters who are being supported by their
respective husbands.
6. Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent submitted that the mother was persuaded by the daughters to
assign a property having an extent of 89.96 cents, 63 cents and 1 Acre to
the petitioners as per document Nos. 2231/2016, 2232/2016 and 2233/2016
and those properties were disposed of by the petitioners and the sale
consideration was appropriated. It is submitted that the mother requires
money for her treatment, clothes and food and a sum of Rs.1000/- each
ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal is nothing but paltry. According to the
learned counsel, the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and had
passed a considered order and no interference is warranted. Insofar as the
civil suit instituted by the 2nd respondent for annulling the documents are
concerned, it is contended that the daughters had exercised undue
influence to persuade the mother to execute such documents and it is in the
said circumstances that she had approached the civil court.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced.
8. Act 56 of 2007 was enacted to provide for more effective
provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens
guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution. When an application
seeking maintenance is filed, the Tribunal is expected to conduct a summary
procedure as provided under Section 8 of the Act. In the case on hand, the
Tribunal has considered the grievance of the 2nd respondent and the
contentions advanced by the petitioners and has ordered the payment of
maintenance of Rs.1000/- per mensem. The records would reveal that the
mother had transferred substantial immovable assets in favour of the
petitioners and they have also disposed of the same and have appropriated
the proceeds. True, some amount is lying in fixed deposit and the mother
has a roof under which to live. At the same time, she is likely to incur
expenses for food, medicine and clothes. The petitioners being her
daughters, cannot be heard to contend that the mother should be satisfied
with the amounts received from her sons on the strength of the previous
orders passed by the Tribunal. I find that the maintenance ordered by the
Tribunal is Rs.1000/- per mensem which cannot by any stretch of
imagination be said to be onerous in the facts and circumstances. The
Tribunal has taken note of the entire facts and has exercised its jurisdiction
in terms of the statutory mandate. While exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226, this Court does not act as a court of appeal against the decision
of the Maintenance Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
characterised as perverse or as based on no evidence. I find no reason to
interfere with the order impugned.
This writ petition will stand dismissed and there will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
1STRESPONDETN DATED 30.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED IN
TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN H.4133/2016
DATED 04.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS H.9712/2017, DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
H.NO.9712/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, DATED 03.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT PREFERRED AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM AS
O.S NO.217/18, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RELIEFS, DATED
02.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL PETITION,
PREFERRED BY TE 2ND RESPONDENT, BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS H.9712/18, DATED
09.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
IN H.NO.9712/18, ON THE FILE OF THE
PETITIONERS IN H.NO.9712/18 ON THE FILE
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN H.NO.9712/18, DATED
10.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DATED 19.08.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
