MOHANDAS Vs. MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be the son of the 2nd respondent senior citizen and impugns Ext.P9 order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short), as being illegal and unlawful.

(2.) According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 gift deed executed by his mother in his favour in the year 2012 has been set aside illegally by the Maintenance Tribunal, invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, alleging that he did not take care of her or provide her with the basic amenities in spite of the fact that the said document contains a specific covenant to that effect. He says that the document was, in fact, executed for consideration and that he had still taken care of his mother more than satisfactorily; and therefore, that Ext.P9 order ought not to have been issued at all.

(3.) In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Baby Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-senior citizen Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, submits that his client was driven out of the house, where she was residing along with the petitioner and his wife, in the evening on 11.02.2013 and that she was also assaulted. He adds that she had been subjected to such objectionable behaviour by the petitioner and his wife many times earlier, but that she could not even approach the Police because the wife of the petitioner was a member of the local Panchayat. He further says that the senior citizen was pushed to the corner and therefore, had no other option but to flee from the house in question and to take refuge with her daughter, the 4th respondent herein, in the house of her husband and that she is now happy and at peace with them. The learned counsel, therefore, says that Ext.P9 is irreproachable and that it be allowed to operate without any interdiction from this Court.