PAULSON Vs. MAINTENANCE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the son of 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent approached the Maintenance Tribunal for maintenance as well as cancellation of the document. The document was executed in favour of the petitioner by 3rd respondent transferring 1/6th share of 3rd respondent. There was a subsisting loan at the time of transfer. According to the petitioner, he cleared off the loan amount and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) in the name of 3 rd respondent. Taking note of the circumstances, Tribunal refused to revoke the deed invoking Sec.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act(for short 'the Act'), so also dismissed the claim for maintenance from the petitioner. There was a challenge against these orders before this Court. In W.P.(C)No. 30873/2015, this Court remitted back the matter for reconsideration by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of Maintenance Tribunal in regard to revocation of deed under Sec.23 of the Act, however, directed the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) towards maintenance. It is to be noted that the Tribunal ordered payment of maintenance by other children as follows:

(2.) There was no challenge at the instance of other children. The Appellate Authority while ordering maintenance by the petitioner ordered that the other children shall pay the maintenance at the following rate. Thomas P.D. @ Rs.3,500/- per month, Raphael P.D. @ Rs.1,000/- per month, Joseph P.D. @ Rs.1,500/- per month. This revision by the Tribunal in fact is without any authority in as much as there was no challenge by others. Any way, the senior citizen also not questioned the reduction. Therefore, there is no scope for interfering with that order. In regard to maintenance, that would be paid by the petitioner @ Rs.4,000/-, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when other children have been ordered to pay the maintenance at a lesser rate, the petitioner ought not have been ordered to pay maintenance at a higher rate. This argument is having some merit. Petitioner alone has to pay Rs.4,000/- per month. However, there is a reason for ordering such higher amount that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the share transferred from the 3rd respondent. May be taking note of the market value of the share, an higher amount is ordered to pay. Any way, there cannot be a huge disparity between the maintenance ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and others.

(3.) Taking note of overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that the maintenance can be reduced to Rs.2,500/- per month. Rs.2,500/- is ordered from the January, 2020 onwards. The petitioner shall pay @ Rs.1,500/- towards arrears from the date on which it was due as per the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner is given two months time from today to clear off the entire arrears.