The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act provides for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, enabling them to seek maintenance, medical care, and protection. A parent, even if not a senior citizen, can seek maintenance from children, and the Act must be liberally construed to provide simple and speedy remedy to parents and senior citizens in distress.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have mounted a challenge against the order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('Act 56 of 2007' for short). By the impugned order the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the 3rd respondent and he was permitted to reside in the residential home owned by him. The petitioners herein, who are his wife, daughter and others were directed to refrain from causing any obstruction to his peaceful residence.

2. The facts indispensable for the present adjudication portray that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughter and son-in-law and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd respondent, who is aged 59 years, approached the Tribunal constituted under Act 56 of 2007 and filed an application under Section 5 arraying the petitioners as respondents. In his application, he contended that he had worked overseas for over 30 years, and using his hard-earned money had purchased property having an extent of 64 cents in Attipra village. His grievance was that after returning back to India, after his extended stay abroad, he was not permitted by the petitioners herein to enter the house constructed by him.

3. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioners and after considering their contentions, by Exhibit P 3 order went on to hold that the 3rd respondent was entitled to reside in the home owned by him without any obstruction from the petitioners. A specific direction was issued to Station House Officer, Thumba to ensure that the order is complied with.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred Ext. P4 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Simultaneously, they have also mounted a challenge before this Court presumably because Section 16 of the Act enables only the senior citizen or the parent to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal before the Appellate Forum. It has been held by this Court that a respondent in the application filed before the Tribunal is not empowered to avail the appellate remedy in terms of S. 16(1), even if he is aggrieved by the order (See Najeeb v. Maintenance Tribunal reported in 2018 (3) KHC 825)

5. The specific contention of the petitioners herein is that the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal is not maintainable as he is not a senior citizen as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. According to the petitioners, a senior citizen has been defined to be a person who is a citizen of India who has attained the age of 60 years or above. The 3rd respondent is just 59 years old and hence the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain his petition. It is further contended that the Tribunal has exceeded in its powers to permit the 3rd respondent to reside in the house as, under Section 5, the Tribunal could only have ordered the daughter to pay maintenance and nothing more. Finally, it is submitted that the complaint is bad for misjoinder as no order could have been passed against petitioners 1,3 & 4.

6. Sri. Sunil Joseph, the learned counsel has reiterated the contentions raised by him in this petition. He would contend that the construction of the residential home bearing No. 1/162 and 1/163 was carried out by the 1st petitioner herein using her income. According to the learned counsel, the key to House No. 1/162 has already been handed over to the 3rd respondent and he can very well reside there without causing any disturbance to the petitioners who are residing in House No. 1/163. He would also contend that the application filed by him cannot be sustained as the relief is sought against his wife and in-laws.

7. Sri. Liju Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has strenuously opposed the submissions. He would point out that the 3rd respo