Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 35452 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SHUKKOOR AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, PUNNILATH HOUSE, MATHILAKAM.P.O., PAAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680685 BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO REMYA V.A. C.M.CHARISMA BABU V.P. RESPONDENTS: 1 MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125 2 FATHIMA THEPARAMBIL HOUSE, BLAHAYIL ROAD, VALAPPAD.P.O., VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680567 SRI SUNIL K KURIAKOSE-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P1 order of the 1 st respondent - Statutory Maintenance Tribunal on two broad grounds. He asserts that it is impossible for him to honour the maintenance directed in Ext.P1 because he is virtually blind, without any source of livelihood; and that his condition is
exacerbated by the fact that he is a cardiac patient undergoing continuous treatment. He says that, therefore, even though he wants to comply with Ext.P1, it will be not possible for him on account of the afore reasons; and therefore, that he had submitted all these facts before the Maintenance Tribunal, along with an alternative suggestion that he is willing to offer the share in the property owned by
his deceased father to the 2nd respondent, as per law. He alleges that, in spite of this, the 1 st respondent - Maintenance Tribunal has issued Ext.P1 disregarding his alternative suggestion, but imposing upon him an amount which he cannot pay. He thus prayed that Ext.P1 be set aside.
2. Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, in response to the afore submissions of
Smt.C.M.Charisma - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P1, the 2 nd respondent is the Step Mother of the petitioner and she is found to have been ill-treated by him. He submitted that since she was thrown away from the residence owned by her late husband - the petitioner's father, the Maintenance Tribunal had no other option, but to direct the latter to pay sufficient maintenance for her sustenance. He submitted that, otherwise, the senior citizen would be irreparably prejudiced particularly in the winter years of her life.
3. Though there is great force in the afore
submissions of Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose and though this Court cannot find any error with the mentation of the Tribunal in issuing Ext.P1, the fact remains that the petitioner’s specific claim is that he is unable to honour the amounts mentioned therein, on account of his physical inability and medical condition. I notice in Ext.P1, that the offer of the petitioner to give half share of property to the 2nd respondent has been recorded, but the Tribunal has opined that it has no jurisdiction to order so.
4. In such circumstances, I am of the view that it will
not be necessary to keep this Writ Petition pending, or to even issue notice to the 2nd respondent because, it would only add to the delay. She will have to be protected and it is for the 1 st respondent to ensure that sufficient methods are adopted for
such purpose. It would be virtually worthless to direct the petitioner to comply with something which he cannot do - assuming that his contentions are true; and perhaps
therefore, it would be better that the property is divided
between the parties, subject to their version. Though the Tribunal may be right in saying that it cannot intervene with the sharing of the property between the parties, it could have done so because the petitioner concedes to it expressly before this Court. I am persuaded to this view since the learned Counsel for the petitioner - Smt.C.M.Charisma, unequivocally admits before this Court that her client is willing to offer half the property to the 2nd respondent.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P1; with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to re-hear the matter, after affording necessary opportunities to the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent - or her
authorised representative; thus culminating in an appropriate new order, either fixing a maintenance amount subject to the version of the petitioner, or ordering alternative methods - including sharing of the property. This shall be done, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35452/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/9/2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM DISTRICT HOSPITAL, THRISSUR DATED Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM MODERN HOSPITAL, KODUNGALLUR DATED 7/12/2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM WESTFORT HIGH-TECH HOSPITAL, PUNKUNNAM DATED 2/6/2022 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN