The petitioner impugnes Ext. P3 and P4 orders issued by the

Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal respectively, constituted

under the provisions of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents And

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act for Short), on the ground that it has

been issued without considering the relevant factors and without taking

into account her specific contentions.

2.

I have heard Sri. Jayesh Mohan Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior government pleader

appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Even though notice from this court has

been served validly on respondent no. 3, he has chosen not to be present in

person before this court or to be represented through counsel and

therefore, I am inferentially lead to the view that he has nothing to offer in

answer to the various allegations in this writ petition.

3.

I have examined the orders impugned in this writ petition and I

notice that the petitioner's plea for having a particular document, executed

by her in favor of the third respondent, be set aside, has been declined

because the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal found that

the execution of the said document by the petitioner in favor of the third

3

respondent was, in fact, witnessed by her late husband and therefore, that

her allegation that she was tricked into executing the document cannot be

found tenable. It is solely on this basis, that the Tribunals below has

declined the petitioner's plea for relief under Sec.23.

4.

I am afraid that the question that was really relevant before the

Tribunals below was not whether the document had been executed using

deceit by the third respondent or otherwise, but whether the third

respondent had failed in his duty or has refused in his obligation to provide

the basic amenities and physical needs to a senior citizen and if not whether

the said document can be deemed to have been obtained by fraud, coercion

or under undue influence, as is mandated under the provisions of Sec. 23 of

the Act. I do not see any such enquiry having been done in the impugned

orders and I am therefore, of the view that the said orders cannot find favor

in law, at least in the absence of such an enquiry.

5.

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of

the contents of Exts. P3 and P4, I am of the firm view that all the issue

involved requires to be reconsidered by the Maintenance Tribunal after

affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, so that this particular

question can also be taken note of by it and answered appropriately.

4

6.

To pave way for a fresh consideration on the above lines, I quash

Exhibits P3 and P4 without entering into the merits, and leaving liberty to

both sides to use all reasonable opportunities to prove their contentions

appropriately before the said Tribunal.

The exercise as ordered herein will be completed by the Maintanance

Tribunal, after complying with all the imperative statutory formalities, as

expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Ns

//True copy//

PA to Judge

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED EXECUTED IN THE NAME

OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER DOCUMENT

NO.4244/2010 OF THE S.R.O.KAKKODI, DATED

29/12/2010.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER

U/S 4 OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE TO

PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007,

BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.6.5.2014.

EXHIBIT P3

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2016 IN J-4599/2014.

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

DATED 08/2017.