Skip to main content

Maintenance Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act Can’t Be Used As Tool In Property Disputes

The Kerala High Court in Mavila Sathi vs. State of Kerala and Ors has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the ‘Act’), cannot be allowed to be used as a tool in property disputes. Petitioner Mavila Sathi had filed the writ petition against the direction issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, according to which she had to reconvey 10 cents of property given to her by her mother Devaki Amma after having assigned 23 cents previously, along with the direction of paying a monthly maintenance of Rs 500 per month. However, Mavila’s brother Govindan took away their mother to stay with him, as she had allegedly ousted her from her house and had refused to look after her. Mavila was assigned 23 cents of property retaining Devaki’s right to take the benefits and right of residence in the tharawad building situated in the property, according to her brother’s contentions. Govindan alleged that though the petitioner was assigned 41 cents of property on condition that she will look after their mother, the petitioner treated her cruelly and ousted her. Mavila contended that she had never agreed to any such condition in the settlement and was willing to take care of her mother. It was argued that the contents of the petition, if taken as a whole, would not disclose a cause of action for issuance of a direction to reconvey the property. She further contended that she had never refused to look after her mother and was ready to take care of her and to provide shelter for her. The high court through Justice Anu Sivaraman held that: “The Act is one enacted to ensure the proper protection and maintenance of senior citizens. It cannot be allowed to be used as a tool in property disputes among siblings. The substantial right of the 3rd respondent (Devaki), which is sought to be enforced by recourse to the Act, is the right to be maintained and protected by her children. In view of the specific contention of the petitioner that she had never refused to do so and that Exhibit P1 is an agreement recorded without her understanding the contents of the same, I am of the opinion that interests of justice will be met by directing that the petitioner shall look after her mother.” Further, the court held that if Mavila’s 74-year-old mother is not desirous of going and staying with her, then she will Rs. 5,000 per month to her mother, instead of Rs. 500 per month, towards her personal expenses. If any default is committed by Mavila in paying maintenance as directed, her mother was free to approach the Tribunal afresh.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/maintenance-parents-senior-citizens-act-cant-used-tool-property-disputes-siblings-kerala-hc/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
22 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
11 comments
Read more

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...
Post a Comment
Read more