Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2816 (MAD)

S. Periyasamy v. S. Subramaniam

2013-08-02

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The present civil revision petition is filed against the order passed by the second respondent, District Collector under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent, father. 2. Learned counsel Mr. L.Chandrakumar appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent, District Collector being the Appellate Authority under the said Act has usurped the power of the Original Authority and passed the present order and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He has not made any submissions with regard to the merits of the matter and he wants the matter to be remitted back to the original Authority viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer, so that an order can be passed on merits after hearing the parties once again. 3. Mr. R.Sreerangan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the second respondent District Collector is beyond his jurisdiction. 4. A bare perusal of the above said Act would show that under section 7 of the said Act, the Maintenance Tribunal is constituted to be presided over by an officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer of a State. Therefore, an application for maintenance has to be made only before such Officer referred to under Section 7 of the said Act. Further perusal of the Section 15 of the said Act would show that the Appellate Tribunal is constituted to be presided over by an Officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. 5. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the District Collector has empowered to act only as the Appellate Authority and not as Original Authority. Perusal of the order impugned in the civil revision petition shows that in fact, the first respondent had originally approached the Revenue Divisional Officer by making an application. Since he has not taken any steps to dispose of the said application the first respondent has approached the District Collector. Consequently, the second respondent District Collector has passed the present impugned order, instead of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the said application. Since he has not taken any steps to dispose of the said application the first respondent has approached the District Collector. Consequently, the second respondent District Collector has passed the present impugned order, instead of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the said application. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the second respondent District Collector in usurping the power of the original Authority is without jurisdiction and in fact, by this exercise the appellate remedy available under the Act to the parties is taken away. 6. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits and the contentions of the rival parties, I set aside the order impugned in this civil revision petition only on the ground of jurisdiction and remit the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal to take up the application filed by the first respondent on 14.05.2010 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. Since the said official viz. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal is not a party in this proceeding, the Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal for due compliance.