K.Rathnakaran vs K.Sathyanathan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5784 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER:

               K.RATHNAKARAN
               AGED 58 YEARS
               S/O KUNDOOR RAMAN, KUNDOOR HOUSE,
               MALAPARAMBA P O -673009,
               KOZHIKODE.

               BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        K.SATHYANATHAN
               AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O KUNDOOR RAMAN,
               KUNDOOR HOUSE,
               KANNACHANKANDI PARAMBA, KURIVISSERI CANAL STOP,
               MALIKKADAVU P O,
               PIN-673010, KOZHIKODE.

      2        THE SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
               SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND RDO, KOZHIKODE
               COLLECTORATE P O, PIN-673020, KOZHIKODE.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SANJEEVE

OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)
                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

The respondent herein by Ext.P1 application sought

protection and reliefs under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The petitioner

and the respondent are brothers. The petitioner being

the elder brother. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed

against him, has approached this Court. The grievance

of the respondent herein was that he was harassed and

threatened by the petitioner. He also forcefully took

possession of a shop room held by the respondent.

Hence, he sought for protection in relation to his property

and life.

2. The authority by Ext.P2 order rightly held that

for the purpose of settling the dispute between the

parties they have to approach the Civil Court. However,

the authority proceeded to pass second direction by

which the petitioner was directed to pay one half of the WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)

rent to the respondent towards the food and treatment

expenses.

3. Evidently, this direction is beyond the

jurisdiction conferred on the authority under the Statute.

There in no finding that the petitioner is under obligation

to maintain the respondent. Hence, I am satisfied with

the direction No.2 in the impugned order is not legally

sustainable .

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The

direction No.2 in Ext.P2 stands set aside.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/17-2 WP(C).No.2172 OF 2021(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/01/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.03.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 24/09/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 19/01/2021.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE