JAGADESH RAMACHANDRAN Vs. MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son of the senior citizen - Smt.Indira B., with whom we are concerned in this case. He impugns Ext.P21 order of the first respondent - Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act'), which orders that the senior citizen be allowed to stay with the second respondent - her sister; and consequently that she be relocated to the latter's home immediately.

(2.) Sri.Nandakumar - learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt.Pooja Menon - appearing for the petitioner, submitted that his client has been constrained to impugn Ext.P21 because, it has proceeded on an unwarranted basis that his client did not take care of his mother in spite of Ext.P13 order, dtd. 29/10/2021, earlier issued. He submitted that the facts cannot be far from truth, since his client had provided all necessary facilities to his mother, including a full time caretaker; but that the second respondent, who is her sister, took up the matter again with the Tribunal, on an allegation that Ext.P13 was being violated, which then culminated in Ext.P21 order. He argued that Ext.P21 is the result of non-application of mind and improper exercise of power, particularly because the directions therein cannot be given effect under the 'Act', especially when it says that the senior citizen be given custody to the second respondent - her sister. The learned senior counsel asserted that his client's mother is now living comfortably in the company of his client and another son, who both see her on a regular basis; and therefore prayed that Ext.P21 be set aside.

(3.) Au contraire, Smt.Beena Sarasan - second respondent appearing in person, submitted that though the petitioner accepted Ext.P13 order without demur, he violated it flagrantly and confined his mother - the senior citizen, in unconscionable circumstances; and therefore, that she was constrained to approach the Maintenance Tribubal for further orders. She argued that the Maintenance Tribunal deputed a Social Justice Officer along with her, who visited the senior citizen and that a report was submitted, detailing the exact situation under which she has been housed. She added that since the Social Justice Officer was also concerned by the manner in which the senior citizen was treated, the Maintenance Tribunal was wholly without error, in having issued Ext.P21. She, however, added that her intent is not to take custody of the senior citizen, or to claim anything out of her; but that she be given good care and attention in the winter years of her life, more so because she is now suffering from minor dementia. She added that it is only on account of her love for her sister that she offered to the Maintenance Tribunal to take her with her and maintain her with the dignity she requires; but left it to this Court to take appropriate decision in this regard, saying that her intention is only as afore.