Kerala High Court
M.N.Thyagarajan vs Destimona on 22 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.23244 OF 2020(E)
PETITIONER(S) :
M.N.THYAGARAJAN,
AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN, MUKKATH HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 040.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN
SRI.RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPARAMBIL
RESPONDENT(S):
1 DESTIMONA
W/O. BINU, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD,
VACHAKKAL, ELANKUNNAPUZHA,PIN-682 502.
2 BINU,
KAVUNGAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, VACHAKKAL,
ELANKUNNAPUZHA,PIN-682 502.
3 DENNIMOL,
W/O. SETHUNATH, PALAKKAL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR
FERRY ROAD, ELOOR, PIN-683 501.
4 SENTHUNATH,
PALAKKAL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR FERRY ROAD,
ELOOR, PIN-683 501.
5 THE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE OF SENIOR CITIZENS,
(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUB COLLECTOR),
FORT KOCHI, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI,
PIN-682 001.
WP(C).No.23244 OF 2020(E) 2
6 THE MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS,( THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR), COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.
R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
SMT.P.N.SINDHU
SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.23244 OF 2020(E) 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a septuagenarian. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are
his daughters and the respondent Nos.2 and 4 are his son-in-laws.
2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal constituted under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and filed a complaint
arraying his daughters and their husbands as respondents. His grievance
essentially was that after working abroad for a considerable period, he
managed to build a house and marry off his daughters. A sum of Rs.5
lakhs was deposited in his wife's name in the Maradu Co-operative Bank.
On 16.03.2019 his wife expired. According to him, as per the laws relating
to succession, the petitioner was entitled to 1/3 rd of the amount lying in
the Bank. He is a cardiac patient and is a chronic diabetic. He requires to
undergo Coronary Angiography and revascularisation as advised by his
doctor. His prayer was to permit him to withdraw 1/3rd of the amount
lying in the account for his treatment.
3. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the
petitioner and his daughters passed Ext.P3 order. Though various
directions were issued, the main grievance of the petitioner concerns
direction No.2 whereby, the daughters were directed to file appropriate
consent to transfer the amount lying in the Bank to be put in fixed deposit
in the name of the petitioner herein and he was held entitled to the
interest. There was a direction to the petitioner not to withdraw the
amount. The above order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the daughters that if the
1/3rd share of the petitioner is released, the same would be squandered
away. His request was accordingly rejected. The above orders are under
challenge in this petition. The prayer is to quash Ext.P3 and P4 orders by
which fetters were imposed on the right of the petitioner to withdraw his
eligible share from the amount of Rs.5 lakhs in fixed deposit with Maradu
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd for meeting the urgent medical expenses of
the petitioner and to engage a caregiver of his choice.
4. Sri.P.T.Mohan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that his only request is to set aside that part of the
order by which restrictions have been imposed on the right of the
petitioner to withdraw the amount.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents
submitted that if the amount is released to the petitioner, he would spend
the entire amount and later would demand money from the respondents.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and I have
carefully gone through the records. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs is
lying in the Maradu Service Co-operative Bank in the name of the
deceased wife of the petitioner herein. There is no dispute to the fact that
the petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd of the amount as of right. Ext.P1
certificate issued by the Consultant, Interventional Cardiologist, General
Hospital, Ernakulam would reveal that the petitioner is a chronic diabetic
and is a cardiac patient. He requires to undergo coronary angiography
and revascularisation. Now the question is whether he can be denied the
money to which he is legally entitled. As to what the petitioner would do
with the money is his own lookout and no fetters can be placed either by
the respondents or by the Maintenance Tribunal. His request for his share
of the amount cannot be denied on the ground that it would be
squandered away. His request cannot be rejected on the ground that his
daughters may be called upon at a later stage to pay maintenance. I find
that the petitioner is a man in his mid 70's. It is unfortunate that he is
forced to approach forums one after the other just for getting the money
which he is entitled to.
In that view of the matter, that part of the order placing fetters on
the right of the petitioner to withdraw his share of the sum of Rs.5 lakhs
lying in the Maradu Service Co-operative Bank will stand set aside. If the
Bank insists, the respondents 1 and 3 shall give their no objection to the
bank to enable the petitioner to obtain 1/3rd of the amount due to him.
All other conditions passed by the Appellate Tribunal shall remain as such.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE CARDIOLOGIST DATED 13.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL INCOME
CERTIFICATE DATED 17.02.2019 ISSUED BY
VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17.12.20219 OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2020
OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
