V.K.Rajkumar vs Rohini P
2021 Latest Caselaw 15526 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

             V.K.RAJKUMAR
             AGED 51 YEARS
             S/O.BALAKRISHNAN(LATE),METHALANKOTH,
             CHEVAYOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673017.

             BY ADV SIVAN MADATHIL

RESPONDENTS:

     1       ROHINI P
             W/O.BALAKRISHNAN(LATE),
             C/O.BABY.K.C,KELATTU CHATHANKANDY,
             CHEVAYOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673017.

     2       RANI.V.K,
             AGED 52 YEARS
             C/O.BABY.K.C,KELATTU CHATHANKANDY,
             CHEVAYOOR.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673017.

     3       BINDU.V.K,
             AGED 47 YEARS
             W/O.BABURAJ,PRANAVAM,KOLAPPURATH
             THAZHAM,EDAKKADU.P.O, KUNDUPARAMBA-673005.

     4       SUB COLLECTOR AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
             KOZHIKODE,PIN-673020.

             BY ADV.SR.GP K.P HARISH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   23.07.2021,   THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021
                                          2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of July 2021

The petitioner is the only son of the first

respondent herein. The second and the third

respondents are his sisters. The first respondent filed

an application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking

maintenance from the petitioner herein. It was

asserted by the first respondent that she had assigned

her property to the petitioner herein evidenced by

Ext.P3. However, thereafter he failed to make regular

payments and to maintain his mother. Ultimately, she

was thrown out of the house. She is now living at the

mercy of her elder daughter, is the case set up by the

mother.

2. Pursuant to the above, the learned Tribunal

by Ext.P2 order directed the petitioner herein to pay a

sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) each

and the two daughters were directed to provide food,

clothing and medicines. It was further directed that WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021

however, the excess medical expenses should be met

by all the three children equally.

3. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is

that all the daughters have an obligation to maintain

the mother and they have sufficient means to maintain

the mother as the petitioner is. Hence, the petitioner

alone cannot be burdened with any liability, it was

contented.

4. Pursuant to a direction of this Court, given to

the Sub Collector to ascertain the financial status of

respondents 2 and 3, the learned Senior Government

Pleader had submitted on instructions, that the first

respondent did not have any job or property in her

name. She is getting only Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One

thousand six hundred only) as pension. The second

respondent has no job and no independent income. The

third respondent also has no income and they belong to

a middle class family. She also does not have any

substantial income.

5. Though notice was served on the WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021

respondents, they have not chosen to appear. At one

point of time, one Adv. Sreekanth offered to appear. But

he has not appeared thereafter nor filed vakalath.

6. The property was assigned to the petitioner

herein by virtue of Ext.P3. It seems that the mother is

not being maintained by the petitioner herein. Having

considered this, the court below was perfectly justified

in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the

mother.

7. It seems that the court below has not taken

note of the fact that the mother is already a recipient of

pension, amounting to Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One

thousand six hundred only). Having considered this, I

feel that the amount of maintenance ordered by the

Tribunal at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four

thousand only) is on the higher side. I feel that a sum

of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only)

per month will serve the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stand allowed in part.

While confirming Ext.P2 order in relation to the WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021

direction number 2 and 3, the first direction will stand

modified directing the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only)

per month without any default.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/23-7 WP(C) NO. 3361 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3361/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.01.2020 ISSUED BY TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 IN THIS REGARD ISSUED TO THE TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3040/2001 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS REGARD.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE