IMPORTANT POINTS
" An application for maintenance could be filed before the Tribunal under Section 5, in the manner as specified therein-This is not an enactment so as to declare or decide the disputed title of the wife and to have her ousted from the building.
" A senior citizen as per Section 4(1) including a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5.
" The proper forum to be approached for getting the relief is under Rule 20 of the Rules and that there is a statutory duty to be discharged by the District Police Chief in this regard.

RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Whether the Superintendent of Police is having any adjudicatory power so as to give effect to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act or to decide title, possession or such other aspects in relation to a property, is the question mooted in this writ petition. The prayers are mainly to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner by evicting the respondents 4 to 7 (who are the wife, two grown-up sons and a daughter-in-law of the petitioner) from the house belonging to the petitioner “even by exerting force, if necessary.”

2. Heard Smt.T.B.Remani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jeswin P.Varghese, learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the party respondents as well as Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent/police.

3. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner, who is a sexagenarian married the fourth respondent on 25.1.1982 as per the Hindu Customary rites and rituals. It is stated that the marital bond got ruptured and the fourth respondent wife, the sons and also the daughter-in-law are not in good terms with the petitioner. It is also conceded that the petitioner had filed an original petition before the Family Court concerned, to get a decree of divorce, which came to be dismissed. The appeal preferred therefrom also was dismissed; pursuant to which, an R.P. has been filed which is stated as pending.

4. The petitioner contends that he is suffering from various ailments as evidenced from Ext.P1 series. It is also stated that he has discharged his duty as a dutiful father in giving education to the sons and they are technically qualified and well employed. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is living in adultery and that she was taking every step to kick out the petitioner from the building situated in the property belonging to the petitioner, which was constructed utilizing his own funds. Because of the strained relationship, the fourth respondent approached the Family Court, Thrissur by filing O.P.No.821/2008 to return 15 sovereigns of gold and cash which were allegedly given at the time of marriage. Another case was filed as O.P.No.1123/2009 seeking for a prohibitory injunction by the fourth respondent, joining hands with the respondents 5 and 6 for restraining the petitioner from forcibly evicting them from the petition schedule building. The Family Court accepted the version of the fourth respondent with regard to gold ornaments and the same was ordered to be returned by passing a verdict in her favour in O.P.No.821/2008. A permanent prohibitory injunction was granted in the other O.P. i.e., O.P.No.1123/2009.

5. Both the above verdicts were sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Mat.Appeal Nos.1080/2014 and 191/2018 respectively. The merit of the case was considered by a Division Bench of this Court and after detailed hearing, Ext.P16 judgment was passed on 12.10.2018. It was found that there was absolutely no basis for the claim put forth in O.P.No.821/2008 with regard to the return of gold ornaments and that the case projected was not substantiated by legally acceptable evidence. It was accordingly, that the verdict passed by the Family Court in O.P.No.821/2008 was set aside; virtually allowing Mat.Appeal No.1080/2014. Coming to O.P.No.1123/2009, the case of the fourth respondent herein was specifically taken note of in paragraph 4 of Ext.P16 common verdict rendered by this Court. Permanent prohibitory injunction was sought for, with reference to the attempt from the part of the petitioner to forcibly evict the respondents concerned from the petition schedule property. It is also stated that, the house in the petition schedule property was constructed by using the money raised by selling gold ornaments of the wife, besides the money obt