SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Balamukundan. P And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Damodaran Nair, S/O. The Late Krishna Panickar And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 24223 OF 2024
Decided On : 03-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinod Madhavan, M.V. Bose, Devi P., Saniya C.V.
For the Respondent: Sri Binoy Davis, GP

IMPORTANT POINT
The Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctions against individuals who do not qualify as 'relatives' under the Protection and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Headnote:

(A) Protection and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 2(g) and Section 9 - Writ petition against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal directing petitioners not to interfere with the family of the complainant - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue injunction against petitioners, who do not qualify as 'relatives' under the Act. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

(B) Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - The Tribunal's powers are limited to maintenance orders and do not extend to issuing injunctions, which are not provided for under the Act. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, brothers of the first respondent's wife, challenged the Maintenance Tribunal's order which directed them not to interfere with the complainant's family, citing lack of jurisdiction and improper definition of 'relative' under the Act.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioners do not fall under the definition of 'relative' and that the Tribunal improperly exercised its powers by issuing an injunction order.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners qualified as 'relatives' under the Act and whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to issue an injunction order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maintenance Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to issue injunctions under the Act, as the petitioners do not meet the statutory definition of 'relatives'.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning Ext.P10 order dated 12th December 2023 passed in K.Dis : H – 3101(A) 23 by the Ottappalam Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate.

2. The first respondent herein resides with his son Suresh, daughter in law and grand daughter in a portion of the house in ownership and possession of his wife Mrs.Parvathidevi. Their daughter, Ushadevi also resides in the house. The petitioners are brothers of Mrs.Parvathidevi, who is wife of first respondent. It is stated that the married life of the daughter of the first respondent did not get long well and she is now residing separately from her husband along with her mother. The daughter of the first respondent, Ushadevi, diagnosed depression and had become mentally frustrated. A complaint was filed by Parvathydevi against her son Suresh in Maintenance Tribunal, Ottappalam on 6th January 2023. Parvathi Devi also obtained protection order against the first respondent, his son and daughter in law from the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The order was passed on 20th February 2023 in CMP No.1880 of 2023 in M.C.39 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ottapalam. It is also stated that daughter in law obtained order of protection against the petitioners and her mother in law on 22nd March 2023 from the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ottapalam in CMP No.2763/2023 in MC No.60/23. The Maintenance Tribunal dismissed the application preferred by Parvathidevi, wife of the first respondent herein vide order dated 27th June 2023 and an appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 2nd February 2024 by the Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad. Thereafter the application was preferred by the first respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal Ottapalam on 24th March 2023 in which the impugned order in Ext.P10 came to be passed directing the petitioners that they should not interfere with the family members of the complainant and create further problems to the complainant and that the peaceful life of the complainant who is a senior citizen and his daughter who is under severe mental stress should not be disturbed by them. It is further ordered that it will be dealt with under the Protection and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 without further trial.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal does not have a power to pass the injunction order as ordered in impugned Ext.P10 order. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to pass an order for providing maintenance to the senior citizen or the parents. It is also submitted that the complaint even otherwise was not maintainable as the petitioners would not come within the definition of ‘relative’ under Section 2(g) of the Act.

4. I see some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the brothers of wife of the first respondent. They do not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. Further, the Maintenance Tribunal does not have power to issue an injunction order as passed in the impugned order Ext.P10. In view thereof the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order in Ext.P10 is set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top