The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act does not provide spousal dispute resolution, which falls under the Family Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a senior citizen, who is now aged 73 years and she is the wife of the 3^rd respondent, who is also a senior citizen, now aged 77 years. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 14.05.2017 issued by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , whereby her prayer in Ext.P-3 application has been rejected. In Ext.P-3 application dated 14.05.2017, the petitioner had prayed before the said Tribunal that Ext.P-2 settlement deed executed by her in favour of R3 (husband)should be cancelled by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in Sec.23 of the abovesaid Act.

2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

"1. Call for the entire records pertaining to the facts promulgated by the Petitioner in the writ petition.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st Respondent to Consider the appeal filed by the Petitioner against Exhibit P4 order and set aside the same.

3. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction, directing the 6^th Respondent not to effect the mutation of the property in the name of 4^th Respondent.

4. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction, directing the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents to restrain from further alienation of the half share of the 8.30 ares of property in Re Sy No.573/15 of Kadamakkudy Village in Ernakulam District.

5. Such other relief's that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

6. Provide cost of the proceedings."

3. Heard Sri.Arun Alex, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1, 2, 5 & 6 and Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 3 & 4.

4. The 4^th respondent is the younger son, out of the two sons born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner had executed and got registered Ext.P-2 settlement deed dated 02.01.2012, whereby one half of her rights in 20.83 cents of land was settled in favour of the 3^rd respondent (husband). It appears that the family life of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is very often in doldrums and despite their elderly age, the disputes between these elderly spouses have gone almost unabated. According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent is behaving in an extremely cruel manner against the petitioner and it is further alleged that in one such incident, the 3^rd respondent had tried to kill the petitioner and that an offence under Sec.307 of IPC (attempt to murder), was registered against the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P-1 FIR in Crime No.495/2017 of Varappuzha police station. It is also alleged that due to the constant threats and other pressures exerted by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner was forced to execute Ext.P-2 settlement deed dated 02.01.2012, by which she had settled one half of her rights in her landed property coming to 20.83 cents, in favour of the 3^rd respondent. That as the 3^rd respondent was not providing even the immediate needs and necessities of the petitioner and as the petitioner was not receiving any maintenance from him, she was constrained to file Ext.P-3 application dated 14.05.2017 before the Tribunal seeking cancellation of Ext.P-2 settlement deed, in terms of Sec.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . The 3^rd respondent herein is the sole respondent in Ext.P-3 application filed under Sec.23 of the abovesaid Act.

5. The Maintenance Tribunal constituted as per the abovesaid Act, after hearing the petitioner and the 3^rd