LIVINS V.V. Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who concedes to be the son of the senior citizen involved in this case, namely, the 1 st respondent herein, impugns Ext.P3 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short); as also Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the Act, on various grounds. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order directs him and his family to vacate themselves from the house owned by his father; while Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Tribunal rejects his Appeal filed against the said order on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 16 of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner says that the directions in Ext.P3 is contrary to law and that the Appellate Tribunal could not have rejected his Appeal as has been done through Ext.P5. He therefore, says both Exts.P3 and P5 orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Sri.Vinay Ramadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.N.M.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 4 and 5.