JOSE Vs. MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a senior citizen coming within the sweep of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), has filed this writ petition assailing Ext.P7 order of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that his client the senior citizen, had approached the Maintenance Tribunal, both for maintenance and for relief under Section 23 of the Act, against his wife the 2nd respondent herein, but that both the said Tribunals have concurrently found that the wife is not a 'relative' coming within the ambit of the Act and that Section 23 of the Act will not apply in the specific facts of this case.

(3.) Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, the learned counsel submits that his client had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife when he had not yet become a senior citizen, under an understanding that she will reconvey the said property to him and he explains that this was done because the original document of the property had been lost and his client had been advised that by adopting this course, two different title deeds could be created. He says that his client's specific allegation is that his wife thereafter refused to reconvey the property to him, in violation of her undertaking and therefore, that he cancelled the settlement deed, which was challenged by his wife before the Family Court, leading to an order in her favour. The learned counsel concedes that Mat.Appl.No.694 of 2005 has been filed by the senior citizen before this Court and that the same is pending. The learned counsel nevertheless asserts that even pending the afore mentioned Mat.Appeal, his client is entitled to invoke Section 23 of the Act, since this is a provision that is intended for the benefit of the senior citizen and he further says that since the wife is a 'relative' as defined under Section 4(4) of the Act, the Tribunal was in error in not ordering maintenance to be paid by her.