IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33449 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.SANTHAKUMARI, D/O.LATE P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 45 YEARS, C/O.SMT.SUNEETHI, ANITHALAYAM, KADINHIMOOLA, THAIKKADAPPURAM P.O., NEELESHWAR, KASARAGOD - 671314. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. T.SUMATHI, W/O.P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, THALIYIL, MANGOD, KOTLA, BHEEMANADY VILLAGE, P.O.BHEEMANADY, KASARAGOD - 671314. 2. T.SARALA, PUTHIYADATH HOUSE, KAMMADAM, MANDAPAM P.O., KASARAGOD - 671314. 3. T.SUNEETHI, ANITHALAYAM, KADINHIMOOLA, THAIKKADAPPURAM P.O., NEELESHWAR, KASARAGOD - 671314. 4. T.SUNDARESHAN, THALIYIL HOUSE, MANGOD, KOOVA, KOTTAMALA, BHEEMANADI, KASARAGOD - 671314. 5. T.SURESHAN, THALIYIL HOUSE, MANGOD, KOOVA, KOTTAMALA, BHEEMANADI, KASARAGOD 671 314. 6. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL & SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD – 671 315. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.33449/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20-04-2011 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P3(a):- COPIES OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPTS DATED 28-2-2011. P3(b):- COPIES OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPTS DATED 29-03-2011 P3(c):- COPIES OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPTS DATED 14-06-2011 P3(d):- COPIES OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPTS DATED 16-07-2011. P3(e):- COPIES OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPTS DATED 5-8-2011 P:- COPY OF THE REGD.SALE DEED NO.698 OF 2011, S.R.O.BALAL EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF KUTTIYANICKAL ANONY. P5:- COPY OF THE REGD WILL DATED 25-11-1992 EXECUTED BY LATE P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5. P6:- COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20-09-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE CONCILIATION OFFICER. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-11-2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33449 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the daughter of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent made Ext.P1 application before the 6th respondent invoking his powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007 and claiming maintenance from children including the petitioner. In that application, it was specifically alleged that the petitioner is an Advocate and that she is employed in Kuwait. 2. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 counter statement where it was interalia admitted that she was in Kuwait. However, it was pleaded that she is not having any employment or income. The allegation in Ext.P1 to the effect that the 1st respondent had given the petitioner her share in the immovable property was not disputed. The matter was considered and finally the 6th respondent passed Ext.P7 order directing that the petitioner shall pay maintenance of `3,000 per month to the 1st respondent due to the land she obtained and on account of better economic status. The other children were also directed to pay `1000 each. WPC No.33449/11 :2 : 3. In this writ petition, petitioner raises mainly two contentions. One is that there was no proof of her alleged employment in Kuwait. Second is that, while the other children were ordered to pay `1000, she was directed to pay `3,000/-. 4. In so far as the absence of proof of employment is concerned, in Ext.P1 there are specific allegations regarding her status as a lawyer and that she is employed in Kuwait. In a proceedings under Act 57 of 2007, which are initiated by destitute parents, this Court cannot expect such parents to collect evidence as is required in a civil court and prove their case. On the other hand, when specific allegations are made, it is upto the children to make available necessary evidence to contradict such claims and in this respect, petitioner miserably failed. Therefore, I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that the 1st respondent should have been declined relief on the ground of dearth of evidence. 5. In so far as the plea of the counsel that while the petitioner was ordered to pay `3000, others were only ordered to pay `1000 and that in that sense, she was discriminated is concerned, rate of maintenance is decided depending upon the WPC No.33449/11 :3 : income of the party concerned. In this case, proceedings have been concluded on the basis that the petitioner is working abroad in Kuwait. Obviously it was taking note of that superior economic position of the petitioner and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner had obtained immovable properties from the 1st respondent that the order in question was passed. I see absolutely no reason to interfere, muchless in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp