Withdrawal of maintenance orders must consider previous court rulings and objections raised to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following prayers:

“i)Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Exhibit P5 Order issued in violation of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act.

ii) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioners are the sons of the second respondent and siblings of the third respondent. They are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the maintenance tribunal directing them to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- each to the account of the second respondent. The second respondent, father of the petitioners, approached the maintenance tribunal seeking maintenance from his sons, who are the petitioners herein. After issuing notice to the parties, the first respondent passed Ext.P2 interim order directing the petitioners to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- each to the second respondent. It is submitted by the petitioners that their mother is residing with them and a divorce petition is pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. As per Ext.P3 order, the Family Court, Thiruvalla, has directed the first and second petitioners to pay an amount of ₹1,500/- and ₹2,000/- respectively to the second respondent. The second respondent approached the maintenance tribunal suppressing the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Though an objection was filed before the first respondent contending the afore facts, without considering the same, Ext.P5 order was passed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent contending that the petitioners and their mother abandoned the second respondent and he had to live in the streets. It is also contended that, even though the Family Court, Thiruvalla, had directed the petitioners to pay a total amount of ₹3,500/-, the petitioners refused to comply with the orders of the Family Court. It is also contended that the second petitioner being the senior citizen and also having heart disease is not able to maintain himself and hence Ext.P5 order passed by the tribunal is legally sustainable and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same. It is also submitted that the mother approached the Family Court, Thiruvalla, for maintenance. The Family Court, Thiruvalla, has also directed the second respondent to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- as maintenance to the mother of the petitioners and the said amount is not being paid by the second respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader.

5. Ext.P5 order is passed by the tribunal directing the petitioners herein to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- each to the second respondent. Though it is noted that there was a direction to the petitioners to provide maintenance to the second respondent by the Family Court, Thiruvalla, the order does not reflect any consideration of the afore issue and has directed the petitioners to pay ₹2,000/- each to the second respondent. Ext.P5 order passed by the tribunal is without adverting to the objections raised and without any proper reasons. Hence, I find it appropriate to set aside Ext.P8 order and direct the first respondent tribunal to reconsider the entire issue in a time-bound manner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

Ext.P5 order passed by the tribunal is hereby set aside.

The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after issuing notice to all parties and also after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides. The afore order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two m