The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent, who is his mother in terms of the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The 3rd respondent (mother of the petitioner), had filed application for maintenance and other reliefs under the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The claim in that regard made by the 3rd respondent was entertained by the 1st respondent Tribunal presided over by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and it was ordered as per impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 that the petitioner should pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the rd respondent, who is his mother. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-2 appeal dated 17.04.2017 before the 2nd respondent Appellate Tribunal presided over by the District Collector, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16(1) of the abovesaid Act. Ext.P-2 appeal has now been rejected by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority as per the impugned Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 on the ground that appeal as conceived in Section 16 could be maintained only by the aggrieved senior citizen/parent concerned and not by the respondent in such a claim before the original authority who had directed to pay the maintenance. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records and quash Ext P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal u/s 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the petitioner and hear the same on merits.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.B.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. One of the main issues that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether an appeal could be maintained by person like the petitioner who is the respondent in the Maintenance Claim before the Original Tribunal, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the abovesaid Act. Section 16 of the Act provides as follows :

“16. Appeals.-(1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent.

(3) The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred.

(4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appeallate Tribunal shall be final:

Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportu