Kerala High Court
Menaka vs The Maintenance Tribunal on 9 February, 2021
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 MENAKA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. RAJAN, PARAYAN PARAMBA, KALLEKKAD (P.O),
EDATHARA, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 006.
2 RAMADEVI
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. RAMANKUTTY, KOTAKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
MULANJOOR (P.O.), LAKKIDI PERUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
3 SUSHEELA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. CHENTHAMARA, PATHIKKATTUCHOOLA, NANDHIYODE
(P.O.), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 534.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 101.
2 KALYANI
W/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
3 RAMAKRISHNAN
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR, LAKKIDI PERUR 1
VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678 001.
4 RAMESH KUMAR
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 2
5 RAGHUNATH
S/O. CHAMIYAR, CHULPATTA, MULANJOOR,
LAKKIDI PERUR 1 VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
SMT SHEEJA CS, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 3
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent is an octogenarian. She is the mother of the petitioners herein as well as respondents 3 to 5. The petitioners herein, who are the daughters of the 2nd respondent have approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order dated 10.6.2019 by which the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has ordered the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per mensem to the 2nd respondent.
2. The records reveal that in the year 2016, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent against the party respondents who are her sons. The matter was compromised and Ext.P2 settlement was arrived at. The sons agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- p.m. to the mother. The mother was also held entitled to reside in the house of the 5th respondent, who is her younger son, for the rest of her life. While so, in 2017, the 2nd respondent again approached the Tribunal and lodged a complaint under section 23 of the Act contending that the property owned by the 2nd respondent and acquired as per various title deeds were assigned to the petitioners in the year 2016 by document Nos.2231/2016, WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 4 2232/2016 and 2233/2016 of the Ottappalam SRO on the strength of the assurance given by the daughters that the 2nd respondent would be taken care of for the rest of her life. She also contended that after acquiring the property as aforesaid, the 2nd respondent was totally ignored by her daughters. She sought for setting aside the documents executed in favour of her daughters.
3. The respondents filed a detailed objection to the application filed by the 2nd respondent. They contended that the 2nd respondent has also instituted a suit as O.S.No.217 of 2018 seeking to set aside the documents executed by her in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners on the other hand have filed O.S.No.185/2018 before the Munsiff Court seeking partition of the properties of late Chamiyar, their father. Those suits are still pending. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not in good terms with their brothers and they have persuaded the mother to lodge the complaint based on frivolous accusations. They would also contend that the petitioners are residing with their husband and are unemployed and they are not having the wherewithal to pay the amount as ordered. They pointed out that the 2nd respondent was residing in a house of her own and a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs is lying in fixed deposit in her name. She is also getting a sum of Rs.1000/- each from her sons. Though she is aged 88 years, there are no materials to suggest that the 2nd respondent is sick or WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 5 that she is unable to maintain herself.
4. The Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the entire facts, came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- each per mensem and the application was disposed of accordingly. The above order is under challenge.
5. Sri.Ravi K. Pariyarath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. He would refer to the sequence of events and it was argued that the mother was being maintained by her sons and there was no justification on the part of the Maintenance Tribunal to order the payment of Rs.1000/- each per month from the daughters who are being supported by their respective husbands.
6. Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the mother was persuaded by the daughters to assign a property having an extent of 89.96 cents, 63 cents and 1 Acre to the petitioners as per document Nos. 2231/2016, 2232/2016 and 2233/2016 and those properties were disposed of by the petitioners and the sale consideration was appropriated. It is submitted that the mother requires money for her treatment, clothes and food and a sum of Rs.1000/- each ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal is nothing but paltry. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and had WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 6 passed a considered order and no interference is warranted. Insofar as the civil suit instituted by the 2nd respondent for annulling the documents are concerned, it is contended that the daughters had exercised undue influence to persuade the mother to execute such documents and it is in the said circumstances that she had approached the civil court.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced.
8. Act 56 of 2007 was enacted to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution. When an application seeking maintenance is filed, the Tribunal is expected to conduct a summary procedure as provided under Section 8 of the Act. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has considered the grievance of the 2nd respondent and the contentions advanced by the petitioners and has ordered the payment of maintenance of Rs.1000/- per mensem. The records would reveal that the mother had transferred substantial immovable assets in favour of the petitioners and they have also disposed of the same and have appropriated the proceeds. True, some amount is lying in fixed deposit and the mother has a roof under which to live. At the same time, she is likely to incur expenses for food, medicine and clothes. The petitioners being her daughters, cannot be heard to contend that the mother should be satisfied with the amounts received from her sons on the strength of the previous WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 7 orders passed by the Tribunal. I find that the maintenance ordered by the Tribunal is Rs.1000/- per mensem which cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be onerous in the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal has taken note of the entire facts and has exercised its jurisdiction in terms of the statutory mandate. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court does not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as perverse or as based on no evidence. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.
This writ petition will stand dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 8 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDETN DATED 30.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN H.4133/2016 DATED 04.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS H.9712/2017, DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN H.NO.9712/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 03.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT PREFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM AS O.S NO.217/18, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RELIEFS, DATED 02.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL PETITION, PREFERRED BY TE 2ND RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS H.9712/18, DATED 09.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN H.NO.9712/18, ON THE FILE OF THE PETITIONERS IN H.NO.9712/18 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN H.NO.9712/18, DATED 10.06.2019.
WP(C).No.28089 OF 2019 9EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DATED 19.08.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE