KUZHIPPIL PAULOSE Vs. KUZHIPPIL BIJU PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) The judgment under appeal was passed in W.P. (C) .No.19838 of 2016 filed by the 1st respondent herein. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent challenged Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby a settlement made by the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent was set aside in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside the order of the Tribunal and ordered that the 1st respondent shall pay to the appellant 5, 000/- per month for his maintenance and also to pay any other medical expenses incurred by the appellant from time to time. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.

(3.) The appellant has six children, three sons and three daughters. He settled his properties to all the children. The settlement deeds, including settlement in favour of the 1st respondent herein, did not contain any stipulation that the 1st respondent shall be duty bound to maintain the appellant. It appears that subsequently the appellant filed an application before the Tribunal with various allegations, including an incident of assault by the 1st respondent and also complaining that on account of the failure of the 1st respondent to maintain him, the settlement deed is to be deemed to be a fraudulent one and is liable to be set aside under Section 23 of the Act. It was accordingly that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in favour of the appellant.