D SASI S/O DAMODHARAN Vs. SUB COLLECTOR AND TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who is the son-in-law of the contesting respondent No.3 is aggrieved by Ext.P-8 order dated 16.03.2015 issued by the Tribunal as affirmed by the impugned Ext.P-9 Appellate Order dated 30.09.2015 issued by the Appellate Tribunal, to the extent, certain directions have been issued therein in favour of the 3rd respondent for which is related to the property in question. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) The 3rd respondent who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner herein had filed Ext.P-5 application dated 09.09.2013 before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, prayed for cancellation of Ext.P-1 settlement deed dated 31.07.1991. It appears that the relationship between the petitioner on the one hand and contesting respondent No.3 (mother-in-law) and contesting respondent No.4 (wife), was strained. Contesting respondent No.4 (wife) had filed Ext.P-2 application as M.C.No.6/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's CourtIII, Thiruvananthapuram seeking maintenance under the provisions of Sec.23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to which the petitioner had filed Ext.P-3 objections. The wife (R4) had also filed Ext.P-4 O.P.No.700/2014 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, seeking return of gold ornaments and money etc. As also stated earlier, the mother-inlaw (R3) had filed Ext.P-5 application before the Tribunal seeking cancellation of Ext.P-1 settlement deed dated 31.07.1991 under the provisions of Sec.23(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 16.03.2015 has conclusively found that as Ext.P-1 settlement deed dated 31.07.1991 has been executed long prior to the coming into force of the above 2007 Act (viz., 24.09.2008), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayers for cancellation and voiding of Ext.P-1 settlement deed. However, the Tribunal has also held that the 3rd respondent is not entitled for the claim of maintenance as she is receiving pension. However, the Tribunal proceeded further to hold that the respondents in Ext.P-5 application (viz., the petitioner herein and his wife, R4 herein) are bound to take care of R3 and directed that the house in question which is situated in the property covered by Ext.P-1 deed, should be made available for the peaceful living of R3 and further that she has the right to live in that property during her life time and further that the petitioner and R4 herein shall not in any manner alienate or transfer the said property in favour of Ext.P-1 settlement deed, during the life time of R3 etc. Aggrieved by Ext.P-8, the petitioner herein had preferred a statutory appeal under Sec.16 of the abovesaid Act before the Appellate Tribunal presided over by the District Collector concerned who in turn passed impugned Ext.P-9 order dated 30.09.2015 stating that an appeal under Sec.16(1) of the abovesaid Act is not maintainable at the behest of a respondent in an application filed before the Tribunal and that the appeal could be maintained only by the aggrieved applicant- senior citizen/parent concerned. These orders at Exts.P-8 and P-9 are under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The main prayers in Ext.P-5 application filed by the 3 rd respondent are for cancelling and voiding Ext.P-1 settlement deed dated 31.07.1991 and that the ownership and possession of that property covered by Ext.P-1 should be restored to R3 and that the respondents in that application (petitioner) and his wife (R4), should not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of R3 in respect of that property and also for direction that R4 should pay monthly maintenance to R It is not in dispute that Ext.P-1 settlement deed has been executed and registered on 31.07.1991. Further, the abovesaid Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has been brought into force within the limits of State of Kerala on 24.09.2008 as per notification issued under Sec.1(3) of the said Act. Sec.23(1) of the Act clearly mandates that the said provision can be availed only if the transfer deed in question has been executed after coming into force of the said 2007 Act. As Ext.P-1 settlement deed has been executed long prior to the coming into force of the abovesaid 2007 Act, the main prayer for the cancellation of Ext.P-1 settlement deed has made out in Ext.P-5 application is not maintainable. Such a finding has been rightly made by the Tribunal as can be seen from the findings made on internal page.1 of Ext.P-8 which reads as follows: