IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28834 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAMEEDHA EBRAHIM, 23,32ND STREET, BLOCK NO.1, KAMBAR COLONY, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600 040. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM 691 001. 2. A.M. SHOUKATHALI, S/O ABDUL RAZAK, EBITHA, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM- 691 001. BY G.P.SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28834 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 13.10.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN OS. NO.112/2005 DTD. 31.05.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM IN O.S. NO. 280/2005 DTD. 27.11.2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. CL ANTONY DOMINIC, J. .............................................. W.P.(C).NO.28834 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the first respondent in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules framed thereunder. One of the contentions raised is that the notice does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 6 of the Rules. The other contention raised is that the application made by the second respondent on which Ext.P1 notice has been issued itself is not maintainable. 2. As far as the first contention is concerned, the ground on which this argument is raised is that the notice is not in Form-C and that the notice was not accompanied by a copy of the complaint. In my view even if the said contention is factually correct, in the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner, such an irregularity will not render the proceedings illegal, warranting interference by this Court. As far as the contention that the application made by W.P.(C).NO.28834 OF 2011 : 2 : the second respondent is not maintainable, I am of the view that if at all there is any substance in the said contention, it is for the petitioner to appear and urge this contention and it is for the first respondent to decide such issues. I am not persuade to think that the writ petition is to be entertained. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. cl