IMPORTANT POINTS:
• An application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
• Provisions for execution of the orders of maintenance are made in Sec. 5(8) as well as Sec. 11 of the Act and as Sec. 5(2) speaks about “interim maintenance”, it appears that Sec. 5(8) should be linked with execution and enforcement of orders of interim maintenance, whereas final orders of maintenance are to be executed in terms of Sec. 11(2).

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

“(i). issue appropriate direction to 1st respondent to execute Exts.P1 to P-3 as per the provisions contained in Section 5(8) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as well as under section 421 of Cr.P.C. within a time limit.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to see that the directions contained in Exts.P1 to P-3 and the injunction granted in Exts.P7(c) is not violated by 3rd respondent.

(iii) such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Heard Sri. G. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with.

3. The petitioner, who is a 93 year old lady, is the mother of the 3rd respondent (son). The petitioner had filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, praying for directions from the Tribunal so as to direct the respondent therein (R-3 herein) for payment of maintenance. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, had passed Ext.P-1 order dated 12.1.2015 directing that all reasonable measures should be taken to ensure the welfare of the petitioner and that the respondent therein (R-3 herein) should pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/-per month to the petitioner. The operative portion of Ext.P-1 reads as follows :

“xxx”

4. Since the 3rd respondent did not comply with the abovesaid directions in the matter of payment of maintenance amount, the petitioner (mother) was constrained to file an application to ensure the enforcement of Ext.P-1 order. Thereupon, it appears that the 3rd respondent has also filed an application under Sec.10 of the abovesaid Act, seeking alteration in the monthly maintenance amount. Thereafter, the Tribunal has passed Ext.P-2 order dated 18.12.2015, whereby the 3rd respondent was directed to pay Rs. 16,500/-and also pay Rs. 2250/-per month from December, 2015 to September 2017, and thereafter @ Rs. 1500/-per month from October, 2017 onwards. Further the Tribunal had directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the said amount in the bank account of the petitioner in the bank mentioned therein. The operative portion of Ext.P-2 order dated 8.12.2015, reads as follows :

“xxx”

5. According to the petitioner, even thereafter the 3rd respondent has refused to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and thereupon, the petitioner was again constrained to approach the Tribunal seeking execution and enforcement of the earlier orders. Thereupon the Tribunal had issued Ext.P-3 order dated 25.11.2017, whereby the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Poovar Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, was authorised under Sec. 22 of the abovesaid Act to implement the above order. The operative portion of Ext.P-3 order dated 25.11.2017 reads as follows :

“xxx”

6. According to the petitioner, in spite of all these, the 3rd respondent has refused to pay a single paise as maintenance and its arrears to the petitioner. The petitioner had thereupon consistently approached the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent, Station House Officer and the one such petition before the 2nd respondent is Ext.P-4 dated 20.3.2018 and last such reminder sent is at Ext.P-5. Thereafter, the petitioner has been constrained to file Ext.P-8 application dated 6.8.2018 before the Tribunal for execution of the abovesaid orders earlier passed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the stand taken by the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent Police officer could enforce the order in terms of Sec.22 of the Act is incorrect and untenable and that the Tribunal has been specifically conferred with power to enforce t