SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
MANOHARIAMMA – Appellant
Versus
MAINTENANCE OFFICER/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4383 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SHRI.DEAN DENIZEN KOMATH
For the Respondents: SRI.SHAMEER P M -GP

{"main_legal_point":"Court mandates timely consideration of a senior citizen's complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act."}

Headnote:The petitioner, a 64-year-old senior citizen, filed a writ petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking a direction for timely consideration of her complaint (Ext.P1) by the first respondent, which was pending despite acceptance. The court directed the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 within two months while ensuring hearing opportunities to involved parties.

Result: The order mandates timely processing of the complaint.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's complaint for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. request for timely judicial response. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :-

“call for the entire records pertaining to the steps taken by the respondents into Ext.P1 complaint preferred by the petitioner and issue a writ of mandamus, any order, writ or direction, directing the respondents to consider Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible and to adjudge over the same within a time frame manner.”

2. The petitioner, a 64-year-old senior citizen, being unable to maintain herself, approached the 1st respondent/Maintenance Tribunal by filing Ext.P1 complaint dated 11.12.2025 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . According to her, though Ext.P1 was accepted on 16.12.2025, the same has not been taken up for consideration by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Since the prayer in the writ petition is limited to a direction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 complaint, I find that this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on EXt.P1 in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows :

The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 complaint within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Before taking any decision on Ext.P1, the 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the writ petition.

SD/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top