The court emphasized the necessity of addressing maintenance issues in proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed an application under the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007, before the 2^nd respondent herein, contending that the respondent No.7, who is the daughter of the petitioner, is not looking after her, and therefore, the settlement deed executed in the name of the daughter requires to be cancelled. By Ext.P4 Order, the 2^nd respondent, noticing that the petitioner as well as the 7^th respondent are residing together, passed an order that the property transferred as above in favour of the daughter shall not be alienated without informing and obtaining permission of the petitioner herein. It was also directed that the 7^th respondent should also look after the petitioner. Not satisfied with the afore order, the petitioner had filed a further appeal before the 1^st respondent herein, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 Order, noting the stand taken by the daughter that she has no objection to the petitioner herein residing in the property till her death. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P6 issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. I have heard Sri. M.K. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. This Court notices that the petitioner's prayer before the 2^nd respondent was only for the cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of the 7^th respondent. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent never had an opportunity to consider the issue as regards the maintenance to be provided to the petitioner in the proceedings before it. It is in such circumstances that Ext.P4 was issued, which came to be confirmed in Ext.P6.

4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that while issuing the orders as above, the prayer for maintenance was not considered. However, since that issue was not specifically raised, I am of the opinion that the order at Exts. P4 and P6 cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary.

At the same time, this Court notices that the petitioner has a contention that the maintenance is not provided to her by the daughter. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered by the 2^nd respondent afresh. So as to facilitate the above, Ext.P4 issued by the 2^nd respondent and Ext.P6 issued by the 1^st respondent are set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner afresh with notice and opportunity of being heard to the 7^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-