JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P7 orders of the Maintenance Tribunal, Kollam constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Act’ for short) and Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice for recovery of the amount ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal.

2. The first respondent has four children including a son. The petitioner is the eldest daughter. According to the petitioner, from 1999 onwards, she along with her husband and two children was residing with her parents in the house in the property extending to 8.33 Ares comprised in R.S. Nos. 288/9, 288/10 and 279/79 in Block No. 3 of Thrikkadavur Village, Kollam district. The parents jointly settled the said property in her favour by executing Ext.P9 Settlement Deed No. 1149 of 2007 dated 7.6.2007 of Anchalummodu Sub Registry Office reserving their right of enjoyment over the property including the right of residence in the house and taking income from the property. The petitioner effected mutation and paid tax in her name. Later, certain disputes arose between the petitioner's husband and her father in relation to their money lending business and the petitioner moved out of the family house with her husband and children and they started living in a rented house from 28.4.2009 onwards.

3. The first respondent filed Ext.P1 petition dated 20.4.2010 before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act seeking cancellation of the Settlement Deed or in the alternative, for awarding maintenance to him. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner resisted Ext. P1 petition contending that the first respondent has earnings to maintain himself and that she has been ousted from the property settled in her favour. She also contended that her father has borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs from her and if he returns the said amount, she would give back the property settled on her. However, she gave an undertaking in writing before the Tribunal that she is ready to give Rs. 4,000/- per month to the first respondent towards his maintenance. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal passed Ext. P2 order directing the petitioner to give Rs. 4,000/- per month as agreed, as maintenance to the first respondent with effect from 1.11.2010. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid maintenance to the first respondent till 30.8.2012.

4. Later, the petitioner's parents jointly executed a cancellation deed No. 2446/2011 dated 24.11.2011 of SRO, Anchalummodu cancelling Ext.P9 Settlement Deed.

5. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition under Section 10 of the Act seeking alteration in allowance ordered as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the parents have cancelled Ext. P9 Settlement Deed and that the first respondent has earnings to maintain himself and she has no source of income. The first respondent filed Ext.P5 objection to Ext. P4 pointing out that the cancellation deed is challenged by the petitioner in O.S No. 803/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam and that he has no earnings to maintain himself.

6. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not consider Ext. P4 petition filed by her under Section 10, but, considered the application preferred by the first respondent for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. By Ext.P7, the Tribunal refused to enhance the amount of maintenance and confirmed Ext.P2 order of maintenance. Later, at the instance of the Tribunal, the Deputy Tahsildar, the third respondent, initiated revenue recovery proceedings and issued Ext.P8 demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of Rs. 1,12,000/- towards arrears of maintenance for a period of 28 months. Exts.P2, P7 orders and P8 notice are impugned in the writ petition.

7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 23.6.2021 contending that he is aged 84 years and had suffered cardiac arrest and has no earnings to maintain himself and his only property was settled on the petitioner on the belief that she would maintain him. Sin