Vinod vs the District Collector

VINOD vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 28, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1560831

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/1560831
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan
Decided On: Feb 28, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/27662/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VINOD

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....has approached this court by this writ petition.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned government pleader, sri.m.s.unnikrishnan on behalf of 3rd respondent and sri. v.s.sreejith on behalf of other respondents.3. in the light of section 16 of the act, it is only the senior citizen who is entitled to file an appeal. therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was obviously not maintainable. the resultant order is also of no consequence.4. as regards the proceedings before the maintenance tribunal, as noticed first above, relief was sought by the 3rd respondent only against thepetitioner. the 3rd respondent has seven other children, all except the petitioner being daughters. no reason has been suggested in ext p1 complaint or in ext p2 order as to why relief have not been sought or granted against the other children. this is especially so since such a contention was urged by the petitioner before the tribunal. ext p2 order is liable to be interfered with and i do so. in the light of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. ext p2 order is quashed. the maintenance tribunal shall reconsider the application after impleading the other children of the 3 rd respondent as parties and with due notice to them also. let fresh orders be passed in the light of the aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. pending the proceedings, the petitioner shall continue to pay the amount of maintenance (`5,000/- per month) as ordered by this court on 17.10.2019.sd/- sathish ninan, judge vdv appendix of wp(c) 27662/2019 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the complaint dated 27-03-2018 filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent exhibit p2 true copy of the order dated 25-02-2019 passed by the 2nd respondent exhibit p3 true copy of the statement dated 07-05-2019 filed by the 6th respondent before the 2nd respondent.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 27662 OF 2019 PETITIONER: VINOD,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O. LATE K.K KUMARAN, CQ 7, P & T QUARTERS, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER SRI.P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH
RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM , COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 030. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PATTIMATTOM-MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM PIN 686 673. 3 THANKAMMA,W/O. LATE KUMARAN, C/O. SACHIDANANDAN, CHANIYIL HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, AYYAMPILLY P.O, CHERUVAYYU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 501. 4 RAJAMMA,KARATTUKUDY, NEDUNGAPRA, KUNNATHUNAD, VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683546 5 PRAMEELA,W/O. SASI, NJAGADIYIL HOUSE, KATHIPPARA,
ADIMALI, IDUKKI, PIN 685 562. 6 SASIKALA SOMAN,W/O. SOMAN, ILLIKKAKUDI HOUSE, ILLAMBAKAPPALLY, KOOVAPPADY P.O, PERUMBAVOOR VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 544. 7 SOBHANA,W/O. GOPI, NJAGADIYIL HOUSE, PANIYELI P.O, KOMBANAD, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 546. 8 SUNITHA,W/O. VIJAYAN, VADAKKEVEEDAN, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 545. 9 SMT. SABI,W/O. SALU, CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA, KUTTAMBUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 681. 10 SHAIBY,W/O. SACHIDANANDAN, CHANIYIL HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, AYYAMBILLY P.O, CHERUVAYYU, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN 682 501. BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.V.S.SREEJITH SRI.K.SUNIL SMT.C.V.VEENA SMT.A.G.NISHA SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481) SHRI.ANEESH K.R SHRI.BEN RAJ K.R. G.P SRI. DHEERAJ. A.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the son of the 3 rd respondent. Proceedings for maintenance were initiated by the 3 rd

respondent    against     the        petitioner      under      the
Maintenance   and   Welfare         of   Parents     and     Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act').                     The
Maintenance   Tribunal    as    per      Ext   P2   order     dated

25.02.2019 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of `10,000/- per month. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent. As per Ext P4 order the appeal was dismissed. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan on behalf of 3rd respondent and Sri. V.S.Sreejith on behalf of other respondents.

3. In the light of Section 16 of the Act, it is only the senior citizen who is entitled to file an appeal. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was obviously not maintainable. The resultant order is also of no consequence.

4. As regards the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal, as noticed first above, relief was sought by the 3rd respondent only against the

petitioner. The 3rd respondent has seven other children, all except the petitioner being daughters. No reason has been suggested in Ext P1 complaint or in Ext P2 order as to why relief have not been sought or granted against the other children. This is especially so since such a contention was urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Ext P2 order is liable to be interfered with and I do so. In the light of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. Ext P2 order is quashed. The Maintenance Tribunal shall reconsider the application after impleading the other children of the 3 rd respondent as parties and with due notice to them also. Let fresh orders be passed in the light of the aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner shall continue to pay the amount of maintenance (`5,000/- per month) as ordered by this Court on 17.10.2019.

Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge vdv APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27662/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27-03-2018 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-02-2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 07-05-2019 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-08-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties VINOD vs The District Collector Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan