HAJARA, vs THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,

Court
Kerala High Court

2026:KER:68437
CNR : KLHC010531682021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
WP(C) NO.20466 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

HAJARA, AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O. LATE ABDULLA, MUKKATH HOUSE, KANNANCODE,
KOLAVELLOOR, THUVAKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN-670 693.


BY ADV SRI.C.BHASKARAN

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,
OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670 101.

2 FATHIMA @ MUKKATH PATHU,
AGED 78 YEARS,
W/O. LATE AHAMMED, THATTANTAVIDA HOUSE,
KANNANCODE, KOLAVELLOOR, THUVAKUNNU, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN-670 693.

3 AYISHA KATTIL,
D/O. LATE AHAMMED, KANNANKODE HOUSE,
THUVAKKUNNU (P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693.

4 ASHARF M., S/O. LATE AHAMMED, MUKKATH HOUSE,
THUVAKKUNNU(P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693.

CNR : KLHC010531682021




2
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


5 RUKIYA K., D/O. LATE AHAMMED,
KANIYAN KUNIYIL HOUSE, KADAVATHUR, CHOKLI (P.O),
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 676.

6 ISMAIL M., S/O. LATE AHAMMED,
THATTANTAVIDE HOUSE, KANNANKODE,
THUVAKKUNNU (P.O),
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693.

BY ADVS.

SRI.CIBI THOMAS
SMT.MINTU CHERIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

SMT. MEENAKSHI FOR R2

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010531682021




3
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


“C.R.”
JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a widow and the daughter-in-
nd
law of the 2 respondent, having married late Abdulla, son of
nd nd
the 2 respondent. Apart from the deceased Abdulla, the 2
respondent has other children – respondents 3 to 6. After the
death of the petitioner’s husband, Abdulla, the mother executed
Ext.P3 settlement deed dated 20.02.2021, settling certain
properties in the name of the petitioner, however, reserving life
interest over the property.
nd
2. The 2 respondent – mother-in-law - sought to
institute an application under the provisions of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short,
‘the Act’), making reference to the settlement deed at Ext.P3
and contending that in spite of the stipulations contained in
nd
Ext.P3, the petitioner is not looking after the affairs of the 2
respondent. The Maintenance Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order

CNR : KLHC010531682021




4
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


dated 16.07.2021, taking into account the rival contentions, as
well as taking into account the conciliation report in the matter,
directing the petitioner herein to make a payment of Rs.10,000/-
nd
every month to the Bank account of the 2 respondent. In
nd
Ext.P4 it is categorically recorded that the 2 respondent,
mother-in-law of the petitioner, is residing with Ismail, her son,
th
who is the 6 respondent herein, and she would like to continue
to reside with Ismail.
3. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P4 issued by the
Maintenance Tribunal, that the petitioner has instituted the
captioned writ petition.
4. I have heard Sri.Arjun C. Bhaskar, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Smt.Mintu Cherian, the learned Government
st
Pleader for the 1 respondent, as well as Smt.Meenakshi V.S.,
nd
the learned counsel representing Sri. Sibi Thomas, for the 2
respondent as well as her children – respondents 5 and 6. There
is no appearance from the side of respondents 3 and 4, despite
service of notice.

CNR : KLHC010531682021




5
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437



5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
nd
that, admittedly, the 2 respondent – mother-in-law – is staying
th nd
with the 6 respondent. He would further point out that the 2
respondent has other children – as noticed earlier – and,
nd
curiously enough, the 2 respondent has only sought to enforce
payment of maintenance against the petitioner herein, who is
nd
the daughter-in-law of the 2 respondent.
6. Per contra , Smt.Meenakshi, the learned counsel for
the party respondents as noticed earlier, would contend that in
nd
the light of Ext.P3, the petitioner had a duty to maintain the 2
nd
respondent, and the petitioner has not even permitted the 2
respondent to enter into the property, or to enjoy the fruits from
the property. She would further state that the order at Ext.P4
is one pursuant to conciliation, and hence this Court is not to
interfere.
7. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the
connected records.

CNR : KLHC010531682021




6
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


8. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.
nd
The first issue is as to whether the 2 respondent is entitled to
seek payment of maintenance from the petitioner herein. As
nd
already noticed, the 2 respondent had as many as five children,
including the husband of the petitioner, who is no more. The
nd
other children of the 2 respondent are impleaded in the writ
nd
petition as respondents 3 to 6. The 2 respondent has,
however, sought to initiate proceedings under the Act only
against the petitioner herein. It is also to be noticed that in the
impugned order of the Maintenance Tribunal, the fact that the
nd
2 respondent has other children and she has sought to institute
the proceedings only with reference to the contents of Ext.P3
settlement deed has been recorded. Furthermore, Ext.P4 states
nd th
that the 2 respondent is residing with the 6 respondent - son
th
and she wanted to continue to reside with the 6 respondent
subsequently also.
9. On the face of the afore, this Court notices the
averments contained in ground B of the writ petition to the effect

CNR : KLHC010531682021




7
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


nd
that the other children of the 2 respondent – respondents 3 to
6 are “in a financially well-off position, and they are having
nd
sufficient means to maintain the 2 respondent mother”. In
spite of the specific averments contained in the writ petition to
that effect, there is no rebuttal from the side of the mother or
nd
the other children. In fact, only the 2 respondent has chosen
to file a counter affidavit again repeating the submissions made
before the Maintenance Tribunal in the application filed under

the Act.
nd
10. In my opinion, when the 2 respondent has other
nd
children, the 2 respondent may not be justified in picking and
choosing the petitioner alone for payment of maintenance to
her. This is especially so since the petitioner is none other than
the wife of the petitioner’s deceased son. This ought to have
nd
been taken into account by the 2 respondent while instituting
the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal.
11. Above all, the larger issue that arises for consideration
is whether the Maintenance Tribunal has any power or authority

CNR : KLHC010531682021




8
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P4. An order for
maintenance can be passed under the Act only with reference to
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act thereof. Section 9 thereof
reads as under:-
“ 9. Order for maintenance-
(1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect
or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to
maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied
of such neglect or refusal, order such children or
relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly
rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the
Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such
senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time,
direct.
(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may
be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government which shall not
exceed ten thousand rupees per month.”
(Underlining supplied)
A reading of Section 9 of the Act would show that it is only the
“children or relatives who can be directed to make payment of
monthly maintenance to the senior citizen”. The definition of
the term “children and relative” under the provisions of Sections
2(a) and 2 (g) also requires to be noticed as under:-

CNR : KLHC010531682021




9
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437



"2(a) “children" includes son, daughter, grandson and
grand-daughter but does not include a minor.
2(g) “relative” means any legal heir of the childless
senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of
or would inherit his property after his death;”
From a reading of the afore definition clauses, I am of the
opinion that a daughter-in-law has not been roped into the
provisions of the statute. True, Section 2(g) of the Act defines
the term “relative” as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen.
nd
However, since admittedly the 2 respondent has other
children, including the petitioner’s deceased husband, even the
provisions of Section 2(g) cannot be applied.
12. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
is entitled to succeed. Hence, this writ petition would stand
allowed, setting aside Ext.P4.
Even on the face of the afore, this Court notices that the
petitioner has been making payments of amounts as ordered by
the Maintenance Tribunal till date. Insofar as the petitioner has
made such payments to her mother-in-law, this Court is of the

CNR : KLHC010531682021




10
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


opinion that the mother-in-law need not refund the afore
amounts to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE

SRJ


















CNR : KLHC010531682021




11
W.P(C) No.20466 of 2021 2026:KER:68437


APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.20466 OF 2021

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED 1674 OF 1984 SRO
PANOOR DATED 26.11.1984.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.87 OF 2018 SRO
PANOOR DATED 12.01.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 20.02.2021
EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 PASSED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN SLIP RECEIPTS DATED
24/03/2023.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS FROM CANARA BANK FOR
PLEDGING OF GOLD ORNAMENTS DATED 24/03/2023.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 87/2018 DATED
12/01/2018.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 22/05/2023.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 86/2018 DATED
12/01/2018.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUECOPY OF PASSPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY,
2021 TILL DATE.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS BEARING NO. KSBK001758
DATED 11.06.2026, EVIDENCING PAYMENTS BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.