IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18851 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, BHAGAVATHI PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, THAMARAKKULAM EAST MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-690 530. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SMT.L.AJITHA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMANDING OFIFCER, 908 PRO VOP UNIT (GREF), H.Q SWASTIK, C/O.99 APO. 2. THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNOOR, PIN-689 121. 3. DEVARAJAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, BHAGAVATHI PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, THAMARAKKULAM EAST MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. NOW WORKING AS HAV NO.7776790 F 908 PRO VOP UNIT (GREF), H.Q. SWASTIK, C/O. 99 APO. 4. VIDHUBALA, W/O.DEVARAJAN, AGED 38 YEARS, BHAGAVATHI PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, THAMARAKKULAM EAST MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1 GP SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18851 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF A JOINT STATEMENT DATED 18.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 7.4.2011 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 6.5.2011 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RECOVER THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT (True Copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18851/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that against respondents 3 and 4, he made application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is stated that the said complaint was compromised on 18.2.2010 and that the respondents agreed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.1500/- per month. That amount was not paid. Therefore, he made Ext.P2 application before the first respondent. In this writ petition he seeks a direction to the second respondent/Tribunal to recover the maintenance as alleged by it. 2. In my view, if the petitioner has a complaint that the order passed by the second respondent/Tribunal, has not been complied with, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek enforcement under Section 11 of the Act. It is seen that the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application before the second respondent. If that be so, the second respondent will take appropriate action on Ext.P3, in the W.P.(C).18851/11 2 light of Section 11 of the Act. In order to enable the second respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall take appropriate action in the matter as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs