Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
N.M.Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
The Maintenance Tribunal, Thalassery – Respondent
WP(C).No.1329 of 2020(M)
Decided on : 10-08-2020
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007-Section 23- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- Section 29- No specific provision conferring power of review on the Maintenance Tribunal-Whereas there is a remedy of appeal, as against the order of the Tribunal- Neighbour of the father of the petitioner, respondent No.2, has no locus standi to maintain a petition under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.
Statement of facts:
Petitioner is aggrieved by the reopening of a finalised issue regarding care to be provided to his father. The issue regarding maintenance of the father of the petitioner and transfer of property in the name of the petitioner had become final in Exhibit-P1 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Exhibit-P1 order was passed as per the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and his father- When there was an attempt to reopen the already finalised issue-The 1st respondent to again consider the issue, on a petition filed by Mr. K. P. Narayanan Namboodiri, who is only a neighbor-On the basis of Exhibit-P9 complaint filed by Mr. K. P. Narayanan Namboodiri, Maintenance Tribunal has issued ExhibitP10 notice. Challenging Exhibits-P8 to P10, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
Finding of the court:
No specific provision conferring power of review on the Maintenance Tribunal, whereas there is a remedy of appeal, as against the order of the Tribunal- When the father of the petitioner, in law, cannot be permitted to seek for review, a third party, in the case on hand, the 2nd respondent, who is a neighbour of the petitioner's father, cannot be permitted to institute proceedings, by filing a complaint-Exhibits-P8 to P10 are quashed.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
The writ petition challenges the Maintenance Tribunal's proceedings on a complaint by the petitioner's father's neighbor (2nd respondent) under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking to reopen a finalized settlement on maintenance and property transfer. [15000489310001] (!) (!) [15000489310016]
The original dispute was settled via Exhibit P1 order dated 8.1.2015 by the Maintenance Tribunal, where the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 4,000 monthly maintenance to his father, and the property partition was not pursued for cancellation. [15000489310004] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15000489310005]
Subsequent attempts by the father to review or reconsider the settlement (Exhibits P2, P3) were rejected, and the High Court in Exhibit P4 judgment (W.P.(C) Nos.35538/2015 & 30574/2017) confirmed no power of review exists under the Act, directing continued maintenance. [15000489310006] (!) [15000489310007] (!) [15000489310008][15000489310009] (!) (!) [15000489310010]
The 2nd respondent, a neighbor, filed HRMP No.2821/2018 before Kerala State Human Rights Commission alleging human rights violations, leading to Exhibit P8 order directing the RDO to inquire into quashing the property document. [15000489310011] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15000489310012][15000489310013]
Based on Exhibit P8, the 2nd respondent filed Exhibit P9 complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal, prompting Exhibit P10 notice to the petitioner. [15000489310013] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15000489310014] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Section 5(1) limits applications for maintenance to: (a) senior citizen/parent; (b) person/organization authorized by them if incapable; or (c) Tribunal suo motu. Explanation defines "organisation" as voluntary association registered under Societies Registration Act or similar law. [15000489310023] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Section 23(1) deems certain property transfers void at transferor's option if basic needs not provided; sub-section (3) allows action by organization under Section 5 Explanation if senior citizen incapable—no provision for "any other person authorized." (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Act confers no rights on third parties like neighbors for Section 23 property claims; only senior citizen or authorized organization (if incapable) has standing. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!)
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 limits inquiries to human rights violations (life, liberty, equality, dignity) by public servants; civil property disputes excluded. Regulations (National/Kerala SHRC) bar complaints on civil disputes, not against public servants, or sub-judice matters. [15000489310031] (!) (!) (!) [15000489310032] (!) [15000489310036] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15000489310037] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [15000489310040] (!)
SHRC lacked jurisdiction over Exhibit P8 as dispute is civil property matter, not involving public servant violation; petitioner not a public servant. [15000489310020][15000489310035] (!) [15000489310043]
Section 3 gives Act overriding effect over inconsistent enactments/instruments; SHRC order (Exhibit P8) as "instrument" cannot override Act's limits on standing/review. (!) (!) (!)
No review power for Maintenance Tribunal; only appeal under Section 16; reopening finalized Exhibit P1 via third-party complaint impermissible. [judgement_act_referred][15000489310026] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Petitioner complies with maintenance (increased to Rs.7,000/month voluntarily); mediation failed as father did not appear. [15000489310003][15000489310017]
Writ petition allowed; Exhibits P8-P10 quashed for lack of jurisdiction, no standing, no review power. (!) (!) [15000489310019] (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Manikumar, J
Instant writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit-P8 as unjust illegal and arbitrary.
(iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit-P10 as unjust, illegal arbitrary.
(iv) To declare that, the Maintenance Tribunal (1st respondent) has no jurisdiction to proceed further with Exhibit-P9.”
2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, petitioner is the son of Mr. N.M. Ghrini Namboodiri and late Mrs. Umadevi. His parents are having two more children, viz., Mr. N.M. Krishnan and Mrs. Shantha. Petitioner is aggrieved by the reopening of a finalised issue regarding care to be provided to his father. The issue regarding maintenance of the father of the petitioner and transfer of property in the name of the petitioner had become final in Exhibit-P1 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Exhibit-P1 order was passed as per the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and his father. Petitioner has been honouring the said settlement without default. When there was an attempt to reopen the already finalised issue, a learned single Judge of this Court as per Exhibit-P4 judgment refused to interfere with the same. Now, as per Exhibit-P8 order, the State Human Rights Commission (3rd respondent) has recommended the 1st respondent to again consider the issue, on a petition filed by Mr. K. P. Narayanan Namboodiri (2nd respondent), who is only a neighbour. Thereafter, on the basis of Exhibit-P9 complaint filed by Mr. K. P. Narayanan Namboodiri, Maintenance Tribunal has issued ExhibitP10 notice. Challenging Exhibits-P8 to P10, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
3. In support of his contentions, petitioner has, inter alia, raised the following grounds:
B. Reading of Ext. P4 would unequivocally show that the petitioner was always willing to look after his father. Exts. P5 to P7 would show that, even after genuine attempts, it is the father, who did not come to reside with the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had also caused obstructions to the petitioner by taking his father home. Petitioner has been paying maintenance to his father as directed in Exts. P1 and P4 without default. Therefore, it is only to harass the petitioner and with a malicious motive that Ext. P9 is filed. For this reason also, the 1st respondent ought not have initiated proceedings on Ext. P9 complaint.
C. It is contended that, the 2nd respondent, who is the complainant in Ext. P9 has no locus standi to initiate proceedings under Section 4, since he does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act. The 2nd respondent is only a neighbour according to him.
D. The claim in Ext. P9 complaint is that the property transferred to the petitioner by his father, should be returned. Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 deals with void nature of transfer of properties. Only a transferor can make a claim under Section 23 of the Act. However in the case on hand, Exts. P1 and P4 had finally decided the said issue. The transferor, i.e. the father of the peti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
