Sreejith vs Maintenance Tribunal

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1400578

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1400578
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Oct 30, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/35167/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreejith

Respondent

Maintenance Tribunal

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice devan ramachandran monday, the 30th day of october 2023 / 8th karthika, 1945 petitioner: sreejith aged 33 years s/o. sivanandan thaiveppil house, karuvatta north muri by advs. b.renjithkumar clara sherin francis respondents: 1 maintenance tribunal (revenue divisional officer) chengannoor p.o,, pin - 2 remani aged 62 years w/o. sivanandan, thaiveppil house, karuvatta north muri 3 sivanandan aged 71 years s/o. velayudhan thaiveppil house, karuvatta north muri sri. rajeev jyothish george, gp this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 30.10.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentthe petitioner impugns ext.p3 application preferred by the 3rd respondent - his father on the ground that, consequent to ext.p1, such an application is not maintainable.2. i do not understand the purport of theafore submissions of sri. b.renjithkumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, because ,if his client has a contention that ext.p3 is not maintainable before the learned tribunal, it is for him to raise the said contention; and have it heard and adjudicated in terms of law. he cannot seek any orders from this court in this regard, particularly because if this court is to speak, then it would tantamount to intervening with the processes which are still pending. in the afore circumstances, this writ petition is closed; but with the afore liberty being reserved to the petitioner, subject to law. sd/- devan ramachandran judge sas appendix of wp(c) 35167/2023 petitioner’s exhibits: exhibit-p1 true copy of the order dated 2.5.2023 issued by the 1st respondent exhibit-p2 true copy of the plaint in os no. 106/2023 in the file of munsiff's court, harippad filed by the petitioner exhibit-p3 true copy of the second complaint dated 20.4.2023 filed by the parents of the petitioner before the 1st respondent

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945 PETITIONER: SREEJITH AGED 33 YEARS S/O. SIVANANDAN THAIVEPPIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI BY ADVS. B.RENJITHKUMAR CLARA SHERIN FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: 1 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER) CHENGANNOOR P.O,, PIN - 2 REMANI AGED 62 YEARS W/O. SIVANANDAN, THAIVEPPIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI 3 SIVANANDAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN THAIVEPPIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 application preferred by the 3rd respondent - his father on the ground that, consequent to Ext.P1, such an application is not maintainable.

2. I do not understand the purport of the

afore submissions of Sri. B.Renjithkumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, because ,if his client has a contention that Ext.P3 is not maintainable before the learned Tribunal, it is for him to raise the said contention; and have it heard and adjudicated in terms of law. He cannot seek any orders from this Court in this regard, particularly because if this Court is to speak, then it would tantamount to intervening with the processes which are still pending. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is closed; but with the afore liberty being reserved to the petitioner, subject to law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35167/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 106/2023 IN THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPPAD FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT DATED 20.4.2023 FILED BY THE PARENTS OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Sreejith vs Maintenance Tribunal Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran