SHIJI THADATHIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the appellate Tribunal rendered as per Ext.P11 proceedings dated 18.5.2017 whereby she has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the fourth respondent (father). The petitioner essentially complaints that the vital documents produced by her like Ext.P8 income certificate, Ext.P9 ration card have not been considered and adverted to by the appellate Tribunal before rendering the impugned decision. The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

(2.) Heard Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Malini K.Menon, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) The petitioner is one among the daughters of the fourth respondent. It is stated that the fourth respondent has six children comprising of two sons and four daughters. The fourth respondent had filed Ext.P1 application before the Tribunal stating that he had given an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the petitioner on condition that she should look after the fourth respondent and that the petitioner has neglected to take care of the needs and necessities of the fourth respondent and that the Tribunal should pass orders to direct the petitioner to return the said amount Rs.33,00,000/- to the fourth respondent. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2 objections. The Tribunal had initially passed order dated 04.06.2015 whereby the main prayer for direction to return the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- was declined and it was ordered that the petitioner should pay maintenance of Rs.700/- per month to the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, she was not served with a copy of the said order dated 04.06.2015 and immediately after coming to know of the said order she had sent money order as per Ext.P3 dated 2.7.2015 remitting the said amount for two months. However the fourth respondent, as discernible from Ext.P4, had refused to accept the said amount offered by money order. Later the fourth respondent had filed appeal under Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as against the impugned order dated 04.06.2015 rendered by the Tribunal. The petitioner had filed Ext.P5 objections to the said Appeal. According to the petitioner, she was not in position to appear before the appellate Tribunal to contest the case and the Tribunal had passed the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 13.4.2016 directing that the petitioner should pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the fourth respondent, which is the maximum limit permitted as per the Statute. The petitioner had filed W.P. (C)No.23988 of 2016 before this Court so as to impugn Ext.P6 order on various grounds. This Court as per Ext.P7 judgment rendered on 03.03.2017 had finally disposed of W.P. (C)No.23988 of 2016 ordering that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the claim of the fourth respondent on merits and accordingly had set aside the impugned Ext.P6 order and further directed that the petitioner should deposit the entire amount initially ordered by the Tribunal, at the rate of Rs.700/- per month from the date of that order (dated 04.06.2015), onwards before the appellate Tribunal which was then directed to be disbursed to the fourth respondent. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate Tribunal on 21.3.2017 and thereafter the appellate Tribunal was ordered to grant sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein in order to pass final orders thereon within one month.