Kerala High Court
Rabiya vs The Presiding Officer on 3 July, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:49371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 191 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.25900 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
UMAYIRA. K., AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. ABOO, THAIKKANDI HOUSE,
P.O. MATTANNUR, IRITTY ROAD,
KANNUR- 670702.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SHRI.NIDHEESH T.P
SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.ASSYA, W/O. LATE POCKER HAJI,
KALATHIL HOUSE, VAYANTHODU,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670702.
2 SAJEER K., S/O. LATE POCKER HAJI,
KALATHIL HOUSE, VAYANTHODU,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR- 670702
3 RABIYA, W/O. T.P. HANEEFA, VANIYEDATH
HOUSE, KALOROAD, MATTANNUR P.O.,
KANNUR- 670702, PIN - 682018
4 ABDUL NAZAR. K., S/O.POCKER HAJI,
MALABAR COTTAGE, KEEZHUR P.O. IRITTY,
KANNUR- 670702
5 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNA-SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY, (TRIBUNAL UNDER THE
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
2
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND
SENIOR CITIZEN ACT, 2007) OFFICE OF THE
SUB COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670101
BY ADVS
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
SRI N B SUNIL NATH-GP
SRI R PARTHASARATHY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.197/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 197 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.18573 OF
2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
RABIYA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. T.P.HANEEFA,
VANIYEDATH HOUSE, KALOROAD, MATTANNUR
P.O., KANNUR-670 702
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SMT.SEEMA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
SUB COLLECTOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 101
2 K.ASSYA, W/O. LATE POCKER HAJI, KALATHIL HOSUE,
VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702
3 UMAYIRA.K., W/O. AABU, THAIKKANDI HOUSE, P.O.
MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI VILLAGE, KANNUR-670 702
4 ABDULL NAZAR K., S/O. POCKER HAJI, MALABAR
COTTAGE, KEEZHUR, P.O. IRITTY, KANNUR-670 702
5 SAJEER K., S/O. LATE POCKER HAJI, KALATHIL
HOUSE, VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702
BY ADVS
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
4
SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH - GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.191/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
5
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.191/2025, 197/2025]
Devan Ramachandran
These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.25900/2021 and
18573/2021.
2. The appellants are the writ petitioners in the afore
petitions and they filed them challenging the order of the
Maintenance Tribunal, dated 05.08.2021, constituted under the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to "Act" for short).
3. Admittedly, the impugned order relates to the
welfare of the senior citizen - Smt.K.Assya, who is 75 years in
age; and the appellants, along with one of their siblings, have
been directed to pay her Rs.10,000/- per month each as monthly
maintenance.
4. The appellants challenge the order on the ground that
even though they have been mulcted with the liability as afore,
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
the Tribunal has left the 4th sibling, namely Sri.Sajeer, from any
such responsibility and further that, as per Section 9 of the 'Act',
the maximum maintenance that can be favoured to the senior
citizen, from all her children, is Rs.10,000/-.
5. We notice that the learned Single Judge has dismissed
both the Writ Petitions, finding Smt.K.Assya to be requiring more
than Rs.30,000/- per month as expenses; and thus holding that,
since the petitioners and other siblings are refusing to take care of
her, the Maintenance Tribunal has acted within its powers.
6. Sri.P.U.Shailajan - learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.191/2025 and Sri.Parthasarathy - learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.No.197/2025, reiterated that the order of the
Maintenance Tribunal is wrong because it has left out one of the
siblings; and further that no amount more than Rs.10,000/- could
have been ordered in total in favour of the senior citizen.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as
afore on 02.06.2025, we directed the learned Government Pleader
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
to obtain a report from the jurisdictional Social Justice Officer, as
to the present condition of the senior citizen, her requirements,
desires and other relevant inputs.
8. The learned Government Pleader has now filed a Memo,
producing the Report, wherein, after enumerating the assets of the
appellants, it is recorded that the senior citizen requires a full-time
Home Nurse, who will have to be paid at least Rs.25,000/-; but
that she has been denied this now because her children, including
the appellants, are refusing to honour any amount.
9. We do not propose to deal with the Report qua the
appellants or their assets and income; but, suffice to say that they
are tolerably well off. In contradistinction, the senior citizen
appears to be bedridden, requiring full-time assistance of a Home
Nurse, but has been now denied this on account of lack of
resources.
10. The Social Justice Officer has reported that the
appointment of a full-time Home Nurse would require a minimum
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
of Rs.25,000/- per month; and viewed from that perspective, the
amount now ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal, in its order
sought to be assailed, is a mere Rs.5,000/- more. The senior
citizen indubitably would require several other necessities,
including medicine, food, nutrition etc.; and the cost for such
would be much in excess of what has been now ordered to be
paid by the appellants and their other siblings.
11. That said, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the senior citizen is now living with her son, who
has not been specifically mulcted with liability by the Maintenance
Tribunal. However, this is evidently because the mother is staying
with him and is being looked after by him and his family. We
cannot find error in this.
12. Coming to Section 9 of the 'Act', the Maintenance
Tribunal obtains jurisdiction to mulct children or relatives, as the
case may be, to pay maintenance to a senior citizen who is unable
to maintain himself/herself, if they refuse to do so. It is
2025:KER:49371
WA 191/25 & 197/25
perspicuous that Section 9(2) thereof provides that the maximum
maintenance amount that can be ordered by the Tribunal shall not
exceed Rs.10,000/- per month; but this does not carry or employ a
covenant or restriction that such a figure is the sole entitled to the
senior citizen. When Section 9(1) of the Act commences saying
that children or relatives are liable to maintain the senior citizen
under certain specified conditions, it can only be construed to
mean that each of them are liable to pay, though subject to the
maximum as fixed in Section 9(2). This is how the learned Judge
has understood the provision and we affirm it.
In the afore circumstances, these Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS/RR
