Jayakumar vs the Maintenance Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007 (Revenue Divisional Officer)

Jayakumar vs The Maintenance Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007 (Revenue Divisional Officer)

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 21, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1785091

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/1785091
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Decided On: Jul 21, 2020
Case Number: WP(C)/14673/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayakumar

Respondent

The Maintenance Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Act 2007 (Revenue Divisional Officer)

Excerpt

.....the following: wp(c).no.14673 of 2020 2judgmentthe petitioner herein is the 1 st respondent in the proceedings initiated by the mother of the petitioner invoking the provisions of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act, 2007. the petitioner contends that he has already preferred ext.p3 objection before the 1 st respondent and his apprehension is that the objection filed by him will not be taken on file and considered by the 1st respondent on its merits.2. heard sri.sasith panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government pleader.3. having considered the submissions, i am of the opinion that theapprehension expressed by the petitioner is misconceived. if ext.p3 objection has in fact been filed before the 1 st respondent, there is no reason for the petitioner to apprehend that the same will not be considered during the adjudication process. this writ petition is disposed of. sd/- raja vijayaraghavan v judge sru wp(c).no.14673 of 2020 3appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 true copy of the petition filed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent tribunal dated 28/11/2018. exhibit p2 true copy of the interim order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18/05/2019. exhibit p3 true copy of the objection without exhibits filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 26/06/2020. exhibit p4 true copy of receipt issued by the postal authority to petitioner. respondents' exhibits: nil

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.14673 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: JAYAKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O.BHARGAVANPILLAI, VENUS VILLA, VENKULAM, EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 310. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL UNDER SENIOR CITIZEN ACT 2007 (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER) COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 043. 2 SANTHAMMA D/O.RAJAMMAPILLAI, AGED 77 YEARS, BHASKARAVILASOM, VENKULAM, EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 310. 3 SUJATHA D/O.BHARGAVANPILLAI, UTHRADAM, THOTTAKAD P.O., MANAMBUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 611.

SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14673 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the 1 st respondent in the proceedings initiated by the mother of the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner contends that he has already preferred Ext.P3 objection before the 1 st respondent and his apprehension is that the objection filed by him will not be taken on file and considered by the 1st respondent on its merits.

2. Heard Sri.Sasith Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Having considered the submissions, I am of the opinion that the

apprehension expressed by the petitioner is misconceived. If Ext.P3 objection has in fact been filed before the 1 st respondent, there is no reason for the petitioner to apprehend that the same will not be considered during the adjudication process. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru WP(C).No.14673 OF 2020 3

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL DATED 28/11/2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/05/2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/06/2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Jayakumar vs The Maintenance Tribunal Under Senior Citizen Ac... Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V