The court adjusted the maintenance amount based on the financial capabilities of the son, ensuring a fair balance with the needs of the elderly mother.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order of the first respondent - Maintenance Tribunal, by which the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the second respondent.

2. The petitioner is the son of the second respondent.

Respondents 3 and 4 are the siblings of the petitioner. The second respondent/mother approached the tribunal seeking maintenance for her day-to-day expenses and treatment. The tribunal, after considering the afore issue, directed the petitioner to pay ₹3,000/– as maintenance by way of money order or bank transfer to the second respondent before 10th of every month. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent passed Ext.P3 order without conducting proper enquiry and without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working in a vegetable shop and has only a monthly income of ₹5,000/-, with which he has to maintain his family consisting of his wife and two daughters. Since the petitioner was evicted from the house in which he was residing, he was compelled to take a rented house, and due to his financial constraints, he is not in a position to construct a house of his own. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not in a position to pay ₹3,000/- per month as ordered by the tribunal in Ext.P3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had to leave the house due to the harassment by respondents 2 to 4, even though he had been taking care of the second respondent/mother and meeting all the household expenses. It is further submitted that the second respondent is receiving widow pension from the Ottapalam Municipality and has sufficient means to meet her maintenance and medical expenses.

5. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, on the other hand, submits that though, as per interim order dated 02.09.2021, this Court directed the petitioner to pay to the second respondent an amount of ₹1,500/- per month from 01.10.2021, only a meagre amount was paid and there are payments outstanding. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not taking care of the second respondent and is not paying anything towards her expenses.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.

On a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it is seen that the second respondent is under the care and protection of her daughters. Though earlier, the second respondent had gone for manual labour, she is not able to do any job now due to old age issues. She is also having health problems. Considering the afore facts, the tribunal directed the petitioner/son to pay ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the second respondent/mother. However, according to the petitioner, he is also a daily labourer, working in a vegetable shop for ₹5,000/- per month, which is not sufficient to maintain his family and also to pay house rent.

7. Ext.P2 is the objection filed by the petitioner before the tribunal, wherein it is stated that the second respondent is receiving income from her 24 cents of property, however, no document has been produced before this Court to prove the same. It is also stated in Ext.P2 objection that the petitioner is paying rent of ₹5,250/- for the rented house. This Court does not understand as to how a person having a monthly income of ₹5,000/- can pay a monthly rent of ₹5,250/-. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the