Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32561
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
Jameela Beevi – Appellant
Versus
THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND REVENUE DIVISIONALOFFICER – Respondent
WA 1999/2022
The Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue protection orders under the Act, 2007, as its powers are confined to maintenance matters.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(a), 3, 4, and 5 - Writ appeal against the Maintenance Tribunal's order regarding the rights of a senior citizen to reside peacefully in her property - Tribunal's order quashed as it exceeded its jurisdiction and was inconsistent with prior civil court orders. (Paras 3, 4, 8, and 9)
(B) Jurisdiction - The power of the Tribunal is limited to maintenance matters and does not extend to issuing protection orders beyond maintenance. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The writ appeal arises from a senior citizen's application for protection from physical atrocities by her daughter-in-law, which was initially addressed by the Maintenance Tribunal but was challenged in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Maintenance Tribunal's order was quashed as it lacked jurisdiction and contradicted existing civil court orders.
Issues: Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had the authority to issue a protection order under the Act, 2007, and whether prior civil court orders preclude new applications under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maintenance Tribunal's powers are limited to maintenance matters and it cannot issue protection orders, especially when a civil court has already provided protection.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly,J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the second respondent in W.P.(C.) No.24328/2022 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2022 whereby the learned learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed
Ext.P8 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvalla, dated 11.07.2022 constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2007'). It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is filed.
2. The appellant and the third respondent in the appeal/writ petitioner are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively. The mother-in-law has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 2007 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla. In the said petition, the relief sought for by the appellant is as follows:-
“In the circumstances, it is prayed that sufficient steps may be taken for me, who is a 74-year-old, widow and a senior citizen, to reside peacefully in the house which is legally entitled to me by protecting me from the physical atrocities of Respondent, by giving protection to my life and property.”
3. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the rival parties and the objections filed has passed the following order dated 11.07.2022:-
“ORDER Cases are pending before different courts raising various issues. Certain courts have passed orders. Keeping the right of the Petitioner who is a senior citizen to reside with all the freedom in the property and the house which was conveyed over to her by her younger son, it is ordered that no action which affecting the life of the Petitioner shall be taken by the Respondent, and the petitioner shall not cause any mental or physical difficulties to the Respondent who is living together with the Petitioner in the house. Neither of the parties shall reside in the house without quarrelling each other. It is also hereby ordered directing that the parties shall act subject to the final orders which are filed before different courts.”
4. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after taking into account the provisions of the Act, 2007 and also taking note of the fact that O.S. No.356/2020 was filed by the appellant before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla against forcible eviction, and the trial court allowed the interlocutory application and thereby protected the possession of the appellant, allowed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:-
“6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The marriage between the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent and relationship being sour are the matter on record for the reason that the petitioner has already availed the remedy under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act much less the maintenance, against the respondent No.3, who has been ordered to pay. It is only after the order of the Maintenance respondent No.3 executed a settlement deed in favour of his mother, respondent No.2/mother in law of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent also filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction qua eviction. Once there is already an order of forcible eviction and culminate into final judgment there was no occasion or a fresh cause of action in favour of the respondent No.2 to institute the petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, for, neither any maintenance had been claimed nor any cancellation of documents was sought. Munsiff Court had already injuncted the petitioner not to effect the life of the 2 nd respondent nor any mental and physical cruelty much less any quarrel. The operative part of the order reads as under: 'Cases are pending before different courts raising various issues. Certain courts have passed orders. Keeping the right of t
