The petition was moved by a senior citizen whose husband had executed a will according to which, during the lifetime, she was given right to enjoy some properties with absolute freedom including the right to collect, take all income and reside in the house.
After her husband passed away, the petitioner moved an application before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act alleging that her son and daughter-in-law are not maintaining her and are not permitting her and her mother-in-law to stay in the house peacefully or to enjoy or collect usufructs from the property covered by the Will.
Even though the respondent daughter-in-law denied the allegations, the tribunal passed an order directing the respondents to not obstruct the petitioner from enjoying the property, to create a peaceful living atmosphere for her and to not cause her any harm.
However, the petitioner approached the tribunal again contending that in spite of said order, the respondents had not altered their ways and that the Magistrate has not taken any steps to perform the duties imposed on them under Rule 19 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules.
The petitioner then approached the High Court through advocate KM Varghese, contending that the order passed by the tribunal exercising the powers under Chapter II of the Senior Citizens Act is legal and valid and therefore, liable to be enforced.
Appearing for the respondents, advocate Bea Mary Benny argued that the order passed by the tribunal was without jurisdiction as it is not empowered to pass an order with regard to other civil rights of the parties.
Source: Barandbench
