Kerala High Court
Shareefa vs District Collector, Kasaragod on 20 August, 2025
2025:KER:62265
WP(C) No.18881/2025 ..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18881 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAREEFA,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.ABDULLA,KAMBIKADAVAN, CHEMBRANGANAM, THIMIRI
VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671313
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
SHRI.SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN
SMT.NESILI NAZEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD,
COLLECTORATE, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121
2 PRESIDING OFFICER,
MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, KANHANGAD,KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
3 YUSUF.V.,
C/O.FATHIMA, KOTTAPPURAM, NILESHWARAM, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON 20.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62265
WP(C) No.18881/2025 ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is alleged to be the fourth wife of the third
respondent senior citizen. The third respondent approached the
Maintenance Tribunal, Kanhangad (for short, "the tribunal"), seeking a
direction to the petitioner/wife to take care of him; and the tribunal, as
per Ext.P4 order, directed the petitioner to take care of the third
respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has come up
before this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2.
Though notice was served on the third respondent, he chose not to
appear before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the direction of the tribunal to take care of the third respondent and to
protect him is against the provisions and scheme of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, "the
Act"). The learned counsel, relying on Sections 4 and 23 of the Act,
submitted that Ext.P4 order was passed exceeding the jurisdiction of the
tribunal since it is a dispute between a husband and wife.
4. It is relevant to extract Section 4 of the Act, which
2025:KER:62265
WP(C) No.18881/2025 ..3..
reads as follows:
"4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens
1. A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his
own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an
application under section 5 in case of -
i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor
ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g)
of section 2
2. The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a
senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may
lead a normal life.
3. The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the
needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so
that such parent may lead a normal life.
4. Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means
shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property
of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:
Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the
property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative
in the proportion in which they would inherit his property."
5. On a reading of Section 4 of the Act, it is clear that a
complaint under the Act is maintainable by a parent or a senior citizen
against one or more of the children not being a minor and a childless
senior citizen against a relative as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.
Here, it is the case of the third respondent that he had transferred his
properties to the petitioner and she neglected to take care of him during
his old age. Admittedly, there is no condition stipulated in the deed to
take care of the settler. The Act was enacted for the maintenance and
2025:KER:62265
WP(C) No.18881/2025 ..4..
welfare of the parents and senior citizens. True, the third respondent
was a senior citizen, but the claim raised by him does not come within
the ambit of the Act. Merely because a person crossed the age of 60
years, he cannot seek reliefs as against the wife. Further, the wife will
not come under the definition of "relative" so as to claim relief against
her. The right of relief conferred on a senior citizen is against his/her
relatives and children as understood in the Act and it does not lie
against a husband or wife. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order passed by the
tribunal, it is seen that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in
passing Ext.P4 order. Though he had stated in the petition that his
children also are not taking care of him, the tribunal's relief was limited
to his wife, exceeding its jurisdictional limits. Considering the afore
facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, the wife, is entitled to get
the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 order is hereby set
aside. It is made clear that if the senior citizen is unable to maintain
himself from his earnings or out of the properties owned by him, he will
be at liberty to proceed against his children for maintenance, if so
advised, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
2025:KER:62265
WP(C) No.18881/2025 ..5..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18881/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
NO.1141 OF 2003 OF SRO NILESHWAR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DHANANISCHAYADHARAM
NO.2121 OF 2020 OF SRO TRIKARIPUR
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JENM SALE DEED NO.1193 OF
2005 OF SRO NILESHWAR
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-03-2025 IN
PROCEEDINGS NO.RDOKHD/D1-406/2025/D DIS OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING SUBMISSION
OF COMPLAINT DATED 24-03-2025
