IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 19TH POUSHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19861 OF 2017 PETITIONER:

SIVADASAN. V.V AGED 56 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VENMANASSERIL HOUSE,TAX CONSULTANT, CHUNGAKUNNU P.O, KOTTIYOOR 670 651, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS:

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL AND SUB COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, GUNDERT ROAD,THALASSERY, PIN 670 101,KANNUR DISTRICT

2 THE MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN 670 002,KANNUR DISTRICT

3 SMT. V ALLY WO. VELAYUDHAN AGED 77 YEARS VENMANASSERIL HOUSE, CHUNGAKUNNU P.O, KOTTIYOOR 670 651,KANNUR DISTRICT

4 SRI V. CHANDRASEKHARANSO. VELAYUDHAN AGED 72 YEARS PENSIONER RESIDING AT VENMANASSERIL HOUSE, CHUNGAKUNNU P.O,KOTTIYOOR 670 651,KANNUR DISTRICT

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADVS.

SRI.R.PRATHEESH ARANMULA SRI.R.SUDHEER SRI.P.SAJU OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J =========================

W.P(C) No. 19861 of 2017 =========================

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2025

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the son of the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent is the younger brother of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent, at the instigation of the 4^th respondent, filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent on 27.01.2014 alleging that the petitioner herein has not been maintaining the 3rd respondent, and prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and also the cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Ext.P13 order was passed by the Tribunal on 04.07.2016 fixing an amount of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent, and also directing him to meet her once in a week and also to take care of her medical expenses, if any incurred by the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent preferred an appeal against Ext.P13 order through the 4^th respondent as allegedly the power of attorney holder, wherein Ext.P17 order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector on

01.03.2017 enhancing the amount to Rs. 4,000/- per month.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is illegal as Section 4 pre-supposes maintenance to be granted to a senior citizen including a parent, who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning of her property owned by him and in the instant case, there is no finding at all on either in Ext.P13 or Ext.P17 that the 3^rd respondent was unable to maintain herself. It is also stated at the Bar that there were subsequent proceedings between the parties and also filed by the wife of the 4^th respondent against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 4^th respondent was given two more items of properties belonging to the 3^rd respondent pending the writ petition.

4. The learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that, his clients are aged and therefore, unable to maintain themselves.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

6. It is clear that the condition precedent for invoking Section 4 of the Act, is a finding that the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or property owned by him. There is no consideration at all of the same in the impugned orders, let alone a finding. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has complied with the directions in Ext.P13 and Ext.P17 as no interim order was passed by this Court. 7. Taking note of the above fact, and also considering the legal contentions raised o