Petitioners in maintenance disputes under the Act lack appeal rights contrary to common law; tribunals must consider all objections.

JUDGMENT

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

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the first respondent to reconsider her appeal and pass speaking orders.

ii. Issue a declaration to the effect that section 16 of the Senior citizens act is unconstitutional, violative of natural right.

iii. Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

2. The petitioner is a widow and the daughter of the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent has other daughters, who were not made parties before the tribunal. The 4^th respondent approached the maintenance tribunal seeking maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month. The tribunal, after considering the complaint and hearing the parties, passed Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of ₹2,500/- per month and also directing her not to expel the mother from the house where the petitioner is residing. Challenging Ext.P1 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and Ext.P2 order was passed rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, stating that the same is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

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

4. The main prayer in the writ petition is, seeking for a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider her appeal and to pass a speaking order. It is a settled position that an appeal from an order passed by the tribunal can be filed only by a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . This court In Aleykutty Varkey v. The Appellate Tribunal Under The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act & District Collector and Ors. (WP(C) NO. 22485 OF 2023),held that there is no remedy of appeal for the respondents, in a petition filed by the senior citizen, before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Act against the children, since it was not a heritable right under common law. Though there is no specific prayer challenging Ext.P1 order, it is seen that the petitioner herein is also a widow, and she had taken a specific contention that the mother had never resided with the petitioner, that she is having a separate residence, and that she also has sufficient means to maintain herself. However, while passing Ext.P1 order, the tribunal has not considered any of the objections raised by the petitioner. No details are forthcoming in Ext.P1 order regarding the objections raised by the petitioner herein. Considering the afore issues, I find it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to raise her grievance before the tribunal. Hence, I find it appropriate to set aside Ext.P1 order and direct the second respondent tribunal to reconsider the entire issue in a time-bound manner.

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

Ext.P1 order passed by the tribunal is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-