ABHIRAM NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants contend that the judgment in WP(C)No.6617/2025 is flawed because it did not direct the Maintenance Tribunal - constituted under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - to consider the question of maintainability of Ext.P10, before it took cognizance of the same.

(2.) Sri.E.Narayanan - learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), notice to his clients could have been issued by the Tribunal on Ext.P10 only after it had satisfied itself that it was maintainable. He argued that since such satisfaction is not forthcoming from any record maintained by the Tribunal, the cognizance taken is illegal and unlawful. As an alternative plea, Sri.Narayanan requested that, if this Court is not inclined to accept his clients' afore plea, then liberty may be reserved to them to raise the question of maintainability before the Tribunal as a preliminary issue and rued that the learned Single Judge did not agree even to this.

(3.) We have considered the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.