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) 15892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
RAJAPPANPILLA – Appellant
Versus
VANI – Respondent
WA NO. 535 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.11024 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN, SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER, SHRI.AMAL BABY, SHRI.AJAY GOPAL, SHRI.NANDUKRISHNA D.
For the Respondents: SRI SHAJIN S HAMEED-R1

Urgent consideration for elderly complaints mandates timely resolution by the Maintenance Tribunal.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the terms mandated by the Maintenance Tribunal regarding elderly citizens' complaints under applicable law. The appellants challenge the learned Single Judge's order for reconsideration without corresponding evidential review. The court underscores the urgency for seniors, urging for timely resolution while leaving merits open for the Tribunal's judgment. Thus, the appeal is allowed, directing the Maintenance Tribunal to decide without delay, within a month post-judgment receipt.

Table of Content
1. elderly citizens' complaints require urgent tribunal attention. (Para 1 , 2)
2. tribunal must act promptly as per court directives. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

Though the appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)No.11024/2022, on being aware that this Court is not in favour of the grounds in challenge - since the learned Single Judge has only directed to reconsider the complaint of the senior citizens - their learned counsel, Sri.Shaji Thankappan, requested that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal be directed to be disposed of at the earliest, taking into account the fact that his clients are 85 and 75 years old, respectively.

2. There is cause for Sri.Shaji Thankappan to make the afore request because, we notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has directed the Maintenance Tribunal to reconsider the complaint of the senior citizens, adverting to all relevant facts, which appears to be not done in the impugned order, namely Ext.P6. We certainly cannot find fault with the learned Single Judge in having ordered so; but a question arises whether any further delay would be prejudicial to the senior citizens, since they are, as seen above, stated to be 85 and 75 years old, respectively.

3. We are guided to the definitive view that the Maintenance Tribunal must decide the matter in terms of the impugned judgment, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, without any delay.

In such perspective, we allow this Appeal only to the limited extent of directing the statutory Maintenance Tribunal to complete the exercise as ordered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

We clarify that we have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties at this stage, and they are all left open to be decided by the Maintenance Tribunal, adverting to the observations and directions of the learned Single Judge.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA

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