Ratheesh Kumar vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 3345 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

  FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945

                    WP(C) NO. 7308 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             RATHEESH KUMAR
             AGED 41 YEARS
             S/O RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, KALARIKKAL, PALAPPURAM,
             OTTAPPALAM- 676 109.

             BY ADVS.
             HARISH R. MENON
             K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
             K.N.ABHA
             A.G.PRASANTH
             K.S.SREEJA
             OASHIN LALAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS
             AND SENIOR CITIZENS, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.

    2        RUGMINI
             W/O KALARIKKAL RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 66,
             KALARIKKAL, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPPALAM - 676 109.

             BY ADV K.BALACHANDRAN (PN)


             SMT.DEEPA V, GP
 W.P.(C) No.7308 of 2022    2




     THIS WRIT PETITION    (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023,   THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.7308 of 2022             3




                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the

District Collector, Palakkad, invoking the appellate powers under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. The mother of the petitioner, Smt. Rugmini is aged 64 years.

She filed Ext.P1 petition before the Maintenance Tribunal, Palakkad

complaining that she is a heart patient. She contended that the son, the

petitioner herein, is a welder and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per

mensem. She asserted that the property owned by her and having an

extent of 8 cents was gifted to the petitioner under the hope that the son

would provide for her maintenance, welfare, and amenities. According to

the 2nd respondent, after getting the property in his name, the petitioner

neglected her and refused to provide her with provisions for food,

clothing, residence, and medical attendance and treatment. She also

asserted that she was mentally as well as physically harassed by the

petitioner and his wife. Raising the above contentions, the 2nd

respondent approached this Maintenance Tribunal and requested that the

document executed by her be cancelled and the petitioner be ordered to

pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per mensem.

3. The petitioner entered appearance and filed a detailed

objection. He contended that he was not having an income of Rs.30,000/-

as contended. He also asserted that the 2nd respondent has other

children and that they are also bound to maintain the mother.

4. The Maintenance Tribunal, by order dated 01.10.2019,

recorded the submissions of the petitioner that he was prepared to

maintain and take care of the mother. The 2nd respondent was held

entitled to live with her son in the residential home, and directions were

issued to the petitioner and his wife not to cause her mental as well as

physical harm. Directions were also issued to the Station House Officer,

Ottapalam, to ensure that the directions were complied with.

5. The said order was challenged by the 2nd respondent before

the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the facts

and circumstances, took the view that the mother was entitled to

maintenance. The contention of the petitioner herein that he is an

autorickshaw driver by profession and did not have the wherewithal to

pay any sum by way of maintenance was also considered. Finally, by

Ext.P4 order, the Appellate Authority ordered the petitioner herein to pay

a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem towards maintenance.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the amount ordered is highly excessive. According to the learned

counsel, Ext.P4 is a non-speaking order, and none of the contentions

advanced by the petitioner before the Tribunal or before the Appellate

Authority was considered. It is further submitted that the husband of the

senior citizen as well as her other children is still alive, and there was no

justification on the part of the Tribunal in mulcting the petitioner with the

liability to pay maintenance. The learned counsel further argues that the

petitioner is an autorickshaw driver operating at Palappuram and that it is

impossible for him to generate a sum of Rs.10,000/- to pay his mother.

7. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent submits that the entire asset owned by the 2nd respondent

was transferred to the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner would

take care of the mother. However, instead of taking care of the mother,

the petitioner has been mentally as well as physically harming her. It is

also submitted by the learned counsel that while admitting the matter, this

Court has directed the petitioner to pay the arrears as well as a sum of

Rs.5,000/- by order dated 19.07.2022. The learned counsel submits that

the petitioner has not complied with the directions.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced. True, the 2nd

respondent has other children, but the fact remains that the property

owned by her was gifted to the petitioner herein. The District Collector,

after considering the facts and circumstances, had directed the petitioner

to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. The said amount cannot be

said to be excessive. Even otherwise, the petitioner can very well

approach the District Magistrate by invoking Section 10 and seek for

alteration of allowance on furnishing proof of misrepresentation or

mistake of fact or a change of circumstance. When such a remedy is

available to the petitioner, there is no reason why this Court should

interfere with the order issued in favour of the aged mother. However, it is

made clear that before considering the application for alteration of

allowance, the petitioner will be bound to pay the arrears of maintenance,

if any, due to the 2nd respondent as on date.

This writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE Sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7308/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21-05-2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-10-2019, PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-01-2022.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF BANK LOAN STATEMENT OF REPAYMENT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PERMIT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FROM OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. DC PKD/29372020 J 4 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.