NAJEEB V. Vs. THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent, who is his mother in terms of the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The 3rd respondent (mother of the petitioner), had filed application for maintenance and other reliefs under the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The claim in that regard made by the 3rd respondent was entertained by the 1st respondent Tribunal presided over by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and it was ordered as per impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 that the petitioner should pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent, who is his mother. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-2 appeal dated 17.04.2017 before the 2nd respondent Appellate Tribunal presided over by the District Collector, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16(1) of the abovesaid Act. Ext.P-2 appeal has now been rejected by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority as per the impugned Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 on the ground that appeal as conceived in Section 16 could be maintained only by the aggrieved senior citizen/parent concerned and not by the respondent in such a claim before the original authority who had directed to pay the maintenance. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.B.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) One of the main issues that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether an appeal could be maintained by person like the petitioner who is the respondent in the Maintenance Claim before the Original Tribunal, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the abovesaid Act. Section 16 of the Act provides as follows: