Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8662
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
K.V. KOCHAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) 30297/2023
R.RAMADAS, MAHESH V MENON, S.GOPINATHAN
The Maintenance Tribunal cannot resolve property disputes and can only order maintenance if the senior citizen is unable to maintain themselves.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Settlement Deed - Act Sections 5, 9 - The court held that the dispute over the Settlement Deed was a property dispute, which the Maintenance Tribunal could not resolve. The petitioner was found to be capable of maintaining himself and his wife, and thus not entitled to maintenance under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 77-year-old retired driver, had executed a Settlement Deed transferring his residential property to his deceased son. After the son's death, the petitioner's daughter-in-law (the 3rd respondent) took possession of the son's benefits and assets. The petitioner sought to set aside the Settlement Deed and claimed maintenance from the 3rd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute over the Settlement Deed was a property dispute, which the Maintenance Tribunal could not resolve. The court also found that the petitioner was capable of maintaining himself and his wife, as he was receiving a monthly pension and had received substantial amounts from his son's benefits and assets.
Issues: 1. Whether the Maintenance Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside the Settlement Deed. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maintenance Tribunal correctly found that the dispute over the Settlement Deed was a property dispute, which it could not resolve. The court also found that the petitioner was capable of maintaining himself and his wife, and thus not entitled to maintenance under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Ext.P5 order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.The petitioner states that he is a senior citizen aged 77 years. He was working as Driver in Kerala Agricultural University and retired from service long ago. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner whose husband (petitioner's son) passed away on 12.11.2019.
3.The petitioner states that he had executed a Settlement Deed No.1054/29019 dated 14.06.2019 at SRO, Ollurkkara in favour of his deceased son. The only property of the petitioner, his residential building, was transferred to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 Settlement Deed. The petitioner would urge that the Settlement Deed was executed on a specific condition that the petitioner's son has to look after both the petitioner and wife and has to meet all their expenses for food, dress and medical treatments. After five months of execution of Ext.P1, the petitioner's son died.
4.The petitioner would allege that all benefits due to the deceased son from LIC and Banks were received by the 3rd respondent. A chitty amount of ₹12 lakhs was also received by the 3rd respondent. His gold ornaments, Dhirhms, Credit and Debit Cards, FD receipts, Laptops, Mobile Phones, etc. were appropriated by the 3rd respondent.
5.After a few months of the son's death, the 3rd respondent went to her parents' home and started living there along with the child. The petitioner's wife is a brain tumor patient and is now bedridden due to a fractured leg. The petitioner also is a heart patient and suffers from several age related health issues. The 3rd respondent is not maintaining the petitioner and his wife. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 petition to the Maintenance Tribunal, invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 .
6.In Ext.P2, the petitioner sought to set aside Ext.P1 Settlement Deed. Ext.P2 application dated 18.10.2022 was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 order dated 08.12.2022. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal dated 08.02.2023 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also rejected the petitioner's appeal as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.06.2023. The petitioner would urge that Exts.P3 and P5 orders are liable to be set aside for non-application of mind.
7.The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner is not able to maintain himself and his wife and since the 3rd respondent is neglecting and refusing to maintain the petitioner and his wife, the Tribunal ought to have cancelled Ext.P1 document or should have ordered monthly allowance. The Senior Citizens Act casts obligation on the relative or children to maintain a senior citizen or a parent who is unable to maintain himself to lead a normal life. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are therefore liable to be set aside.
8.The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that she and her child were forcefully thrown out from the matrimonial home on 29.06.2020. It was thereafter that the petitioner started to live in her parental home. The petitioner had received ₹9,56,742/- out of LIC and other terminal benefits of her deceased husband. The petitioner has claimed and received ₹2,73,540/- (1400 Dhirhms) held in the account of the deceased person in Abudhabi. The petitioner has sold the car of the petitioner's husband and appropriated the sale proceeds amount also. The petitioner's deceased husband had paid ₹5,30,000/- to the petitioner in the year 2019. The petitioner is a retired Government employee and is receiving a pension of ₹30,000/- per month. The petitioner is able to maintain himself. The writ petition is therefore only to be dismissed upholding Exts.P3 and P5 orders.
9.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 a
