A.LATHA SUMAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case is with regard to the right of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer before the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding filed under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

(2.) The second respondent who is the father of the petitioner filed an application before the competent authority, claiming maintenance form the petitioner and after considering the same, Ext.P2 order was passed by the said authority on 21/2/2012. It is stated that, the second respondent is not satisfied the same, who wants to proceed further and accordingly, he has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, pursuant to which, Ext.P3 notice has been issued to the petitioner to 'appear in person'. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner wants to engage a lawyer of his choice, which however is not permitted by the first respondent in view of the bar under section 17 of the Act 56/2007 and hence under challenge.

(3.) The second respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that, there is absolutely no basis for the claim put for to be represented through a lawyer. Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court reported in Venkatachalam v.Ajith Kumar C. Shah, 2011 3 KerLT 150 holding that, it is open for the persons like the petitioner to appoint an 'authorised agent' who can appear on behalf of the party.