Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
PRAMEELA AGED 37 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 34378/2011
Maintenance - Parents Welfare - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 23 - The Maintenance Tribunal lacks authority to revoke documents executed prior to the enforcement of the Act, rendering the challenged order unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an order by the Maintenance Tribunal that revoked a mutation on grounds of it being executed post-Act commencement, although it was executed in 2003, before the Act's enforcement.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Maintenance Tribunal exceeded its authority by revoking a document executed prior to the Act's effect, thus setting aside the revocation order and directing restoration of the mutation.
Issues: Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had the power to revoke a mutation executed before the commencement of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Section 23 of the Act can only apply to documents executed after the Act came into effect, establishing the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over prior documents.
Final Decision: The revocation order was set aside and mutation restored.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners aggrieved by an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 'Act'), have approached this Court. Ext.P8 is the order.
2. By Ext.P8 order, the Maintenance Tribunal, cancelled mutation effected pursuant to the document executed by the party respondent in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003.
Under Section 23 of the Act, the senior citizen can approach the Maintenance Tribunal to revoke any document executed after the commencement of the Act. The Act came into effect on 24.8.2007. Admittedly, the Tribunal revoked mutation based on the document executed in the year 2003. The Tribunal has no power to revoke any document executed prior to the Act. In that view of the matter, the order is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
However, this will not stand in the way of the party respondent in approaching the Maintenance Tribunal for obtaining any order of maintenance, if otherwise, he is entitled from the petitioners. In view of the above, the revenue officials are directed to restore the mutation in favour of the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
