IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 12TH ASWINA, 1946 WA NO. 1554 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024 IN WP(C) NO.30074 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

BIJU K.V AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE VASU, KAITHOLIL HOUSE, KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577 BY ADV M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, (MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN ACT), PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575

2 CHELLAMMA AGED 67 YEARS W/O LATE VASU, KAITHOLIL HOUSE, KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. K.P. HARISH (SR.G.P)

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT NITIN JAMDAR.C.J.

Heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for Respondents.

2. In light of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary for us to issue notice to the Respondent No.2.

3. The Appellant is the son of the Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had approached the Maintenance Tribunal established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had directed the Appellant to vacate the residential before 14 June 2024 and rectify the damages. The Petitioner/Appellant challenged the order before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.30074 of 2024, which is disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 12 September

2024.

4. The learned Single Judge observed that the impugned direction was given by the Tribunal because of the undertaking of the Appellant that he was willing to vacate the house and rectify the damages. The learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Appellant/Petitioner had not given such undertaking, to which the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the Appellant will have to approach the Tribunal in respect of the same and left it open to the Appellant to approach the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant has raised contention as regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, if the Appellant had given an undertaking which the Tribunal accepted, considering the purpose of this beneficial legislation, question would be whether interference in writ jurisdiction would be warranted. However, since an opportunity is given to the Appellant to approach the Tribunal, the protection for limited period of time to get this issue resolved from the Tribunal would be equitable.

6. None appear for the Respondent.

7. According to us, instead of issuing notice and keeping the appeal pending with a protective order, we dispose of the appeal by extending the period given to the Appellant by the Tribunal for a period of two weeks from today. Order accordingly.

8. If the Appellant approaches the Tribunal, the Tribunal will decide the application made by the Tribunal within the period which we have extended. Thereafter, it is open to the parties to adopt appropriate proceedings. Since the order is passed without notice to the 2^nd Respondent, in the above circumstances, contentions of all parties are left open.

Sd/-

NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

S.MANU JUDGE rp