Kerala High Court
Ramaswami vs The State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.24883 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER:
RAMASWAMI
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.SANKUNNY,
CHELOOR MARASSERY HOUSE,
KORIMBISSERY DESOM,
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680683.
BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION,
IRINJALAKUDA,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121.
3 KUTTAN,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.SANKUNNY, CHELOOR MARASSERY HOUSE,
KORIMBISSERY DESOM,
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680773.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).24883/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2020 in C2-
4428/2020 of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal,
Irinjalakkuda under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act 2007.
2. Issue relates to the maintenance of the mother of petitioner
and the third respondent. In the application filed for appropriate reliefs,
on the basis of the materials on record, Tribunal passed an order
permitting the petitioner to visit the house of the third respondent once in
a month to meet the mother and to interact with her.
3. This is assailed by the petitioner contending that, he wishes to
take the mother to his house and to take care of her for few days.
Petitioner apprehends that, if he visits the house of the third respondent
in obedience to the impugned order, third respondent/brother will create
unnecessary issues and prevent him from meeting the mother. Learned
counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P3 which is a
statement recorded by the police as directed by this Court in W.P(Crl).87
of 2020. There is a recital, in that, mother has no objection in staying
with the petitioner. This was projected by the petitioner to contend that,
he was entitled to take her to his house for few days. Ext.P3, if read as a
whole, gives a clear idea that, mother has stated that, she has not moved
W.P(C).24883/2020
out of the tarvad house after the death of her husband and she wants to
stay at her own house till her death. She has also stated that, she is aged,
infirm and cannot travel. In this background, her vague statement that,
she has no objection in going to the house of the petitioner, cannot be
read in isolation. It seems that the mother has indirectly expressed her
wish not to move out of the present house.
4. It seems that, she is aged 94 years at present and I do not feel
that, she is in a fit condition to move. Third respondent, at the time of
hearing undertook that, if the petitioner visits to his house in obedience to
Ext.P6, he will not object to it and the petitioner will be permitted to meet
the mother. Having considered this, I find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order, which is accordingly sustained.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
W.P(C).24883/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.2956 OF
2014 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
DATED 09.07.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE IRINJALAKUDA DATED 07.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH
STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER THROUGH
IRINJALAKUDA POLICE IN WP(CRL.)87 OF 2020
DATED 16.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(CRL)87 OF
2020 OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 18.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT C2-4428/2020
FILED BEFORE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21.04.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA IN C2-
4428/2020 DATED 19.10.2020.
