JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (a) Call for the records leading to Ext P-4 & P-6 order and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (b) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 & 2. Though service of notice has been duly completed on R-3, there is no appearance for that party. 3. The petitioner herein is the daughter of the 3rd respondent (mother). The 3rd respondent had filed Ext.P-1 application dated 13.10.2017 before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It appears from a reading of Ext.P-1 application that one of the incidental pleas made by the 3rd respondent was for cancellation of the registered deed executed on 20.21.1987, whereby the landed property of 7 cents and residential building thereon, was settled by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner after the death of the 3rd respondent's husband (father of the petitioner). The main allegations in Ext.P-1 are to the effect that the 3rd respondent is consistently facing mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the petitioner and her husband and that they had coerced the respondent to part away with another property coming to an extent of 41 cents, which was later sold by them and that various other title deeds, valuable articles, etc. have been forcefully taken from the 3rd respondent by the petitioner and her husband and that ultimately, the petitioner had thrown out the 3rd respondent from the residential house in question and that, faced with no other alternative, the 3rd respondent had to take refuge in the residential house belonging to one of her other daughters and that the petitioner and her husband had come to that house also and had assaulted and caused harm to the 3rd respondent, etc. and had threatened to kill her, etc. and had threatened to kill her, etc. In the light of these allegations, the 3rd respondent has prayed in Ext.P-1 application that necessary directions should be issued by the Tribunal to ensure that such violent acts of the petitioner and her husband are prevented and that the 3rd respondent should be permitted to enjoy peaceful residence and living in the residential house concerned, etc. 4. The petitioner had filed Ext.P-2 objections contending that the abovesaid allegations raised in Ext.P-1 are actually wrong and false, etc. Later the petitioner had also filed Ext.P-3 application seeking that the other siblings should also be treated as additional parties in Ext.P-1 proceedings, in terms of the proviso to Sec. 5 of the abovesaid Act. 5. The petitioner would allege that Ext.P-4 order was thereafter passed by the Tribunal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned Ext.P-4 order dated 29.1.2018 reads as follows: “Any Other Language” 6. The petitioner would pray that the impugned Ext.P-4 order is liable to be set aside and further that the pleas made by the rd respondent in Ext.P-1 application are not maintainable going by the terms and conditions in Secs. 4 and 5 of the Act. 7. From a reading of the impugned Ext.P-4 order, it can be seen that the Tribunal has specifically held that the plea of the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the transfer deed dated 20.10.1987, is not maintainable inasmuch as the said deed has been executed long prior to coming into force of the abovesaid Act (24.9.2008). The 3rd respondent has not challenged the said finding. The petitioner is fully satisfied with that finding. Therefore, the impugned Ext.P-4 order to the extent it has refused to cancel the deed dated 20.10.1987 does not require any interdiction, inasmuch as the said finding of the Tribunal is correct as the transfer deeds, gift, settlement, etc. registered and executed prior to the coming into force of the above Act cannot be cancelled under Sec. 23(1) of the abovesaid Act. 8. registered and executed prior to the coming into force of the above Act cannot be cancelled under Sec. 23(1) of the abovesaid Act. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the remaining allegations in Ext.P-1 application are only for directions to the Tribunal to ensure peaceful living and residence of the 3rd respondent in the residential house in question and that she has not made any plea for monetary maintenance and that therefore, the said pleas, on which orders have been passed by the Tribunal in Ext.P-4, are not maintainable going by the terms and conditions of Secs.4 and 5 of the abovesaid Act. Sec. 4 deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizens and Sec.5 speaks about the application for maintenance that may be made in that regard. “Maintenance” has been defined in Sec. 2(b) of the Act, “includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment”. Sub section (3) of Sec. 4 mandates that the obligation on the children to maintain their parents extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. It is true that no specific request was made by the 3rd respondent in the matter of grant of monetary maintenance. But going by the specific provisions contained in Sec.2(b) of the Act, dealing with the definition of “maintenance” and the specific provision conceived in sub section (3) of Sec. 4, the concept of maintenance engrafted in the abovesaid Act includes even provision for ensuring peaceful residence and living of the senior citizen parent in the residential house in question. Sub section (1) of Sec.4 confers a right on a senior citizen including parent, who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, to make an application under Sec.5 so as to seek maintenance against one or more of his children not being a minor or in the case of a childless senior citizen, such relief could be sought against a relative referred to sub section (g) of Sec. 2 of the Act. Secs.4 and 5 of the abovesaid Act read as follows: “Sec. 4: Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.--(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of- (i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor; (ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2. (2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life. (3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. (4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen: Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property. Sec.5: Application for maintenance.-(1) An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made- (a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or (b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organisation authorised by him; or (c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "organisation" means any voluntary association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (21 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force. (2) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent and to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct. (2) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent and to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct. (3) On receipt of an application for maintenance under sub-section (1) after giving notice of the application to the children or relative and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry for determining the amount of maintenance. (4) An application filed under sub-section (2) for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person: Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said period, once for a maximum period of thirty days in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) An application for maintenance under sub-section (1) may be filed against one or more persons: Provided that such children or relative may implead the other person liable to maintain parent in the application for maintenance. (6) Where a maintenance order was made against more than one person, the death of one of them does not affect the liability of others to continue paying maintenance. (7) Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (7) Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (8) If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within a period of three months from the date on which it became due.” Sub section (2) of Sec.4 mandates that obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life. Further, sub section (3) of Sec. 4 mandates an obligation on the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. Therefore, the senior citizen parent has statutory right under the abovesaid Act to seek for necessary directions from the Tribunal to ensure the enjoyment and continuance of peaceful living and residence, in case such peaceful has been breached by the children/relative concerned, as the case may be. Therefore, merely because the 3rd respondent has not requested for grant of monetary maintenance, does not mean that the pleas made in the application for grant of issuance of direction by the Tribunal so as to ensure peaceful living and residence is beyond the purview of Secs.4 and 5 of the Act. Therefore, merely because the 3rd respondent has not requested for grant of monetary maintenance, does not mean that the pleas made in the application for grant of issuance of direction by the Tribunal so as to ensure peaceful living and residence is beyond the purview of Secs.4 and 5 of the Act. In case the breach of the peaceful living and residence of the senior citizen parent is made by their children or relatives, as the case may be, as understood in Sec. 2(a) & 2(g) of the Act, then directions for ensuring such peaceful living of the applicant senior citizen could be made under Secs.4 and 5 of the Act. But where the allegations of threatening the peaceful living of the senior citizens are decided against third parties (viz., parties other than “children” and “relatives” as per Secs.2(a) & 2(g) of the Act, then the aggrieved senior citizen could seek “welfare measures” as understood in Sec. 2(k) and for directions to ensure their peaceful living by filing application before the District Magistrate under Sec. 22 of the Act r/w Rule 19 of the Rules. [See judgment dt.10.9.2018 in W.P.(C).No.20872/2018, Reju v. Maintenance Tribunal, 2016 (2) KLT 264 , Balbir Kaur v. SDM (AIR 2016 P&H (4), etc.]. In that view of the matter, the said contention raised by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the main pleas made in Ext.P-1 application will stand repelled and overruled. 9. Though service of notice on R-3 has been duly completed, the said party has not chosen to appear before this Court. It is now submitted by Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of the instructions of his party that in spite of the specific interim order issued by this Court on 29.6.2018 in this W.P.(C), the 3rd respondent has not chosen to come over to the residence of the petitioner, etc. The operative portion of the order dated 29.6.2018 rendered by this Court reads as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-4 order dated 29.1.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent will stand stayed to the limited extent insofar as it directs intervention of the Police authorities concerned and also to the limited extent it permits the relatives to reside with R-3 in the petitioner's residence as and when they so choose. However, it is ordered that such relatives will be at liberty to visit the 3rd respondent in the residence of the petitioner. It is also ordered that the 2nd respondent Sub Collector/RDO will be at liberty to ensure that timely visits are made by the officials like the Social Welfare Officer or by the Councillor of the local authority concerned or by any the office bearers of the residents' association of the locality so that they can visit R-3 and inform the 2nd respondent as to whether her peaceful residence is in any manner threatened. Subject to the above modification, the impugned Ext.P-4 order will continue to have its efficacy on all other aspects. This interlocutory direction will be in force for a period of three weeks.” 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on the basis of the instructions of his party that his party has no objection in modifying the impugned Ext.P-4 order in terms of the specific directions issued by this Court in the order dated 29.6.2018, even though his party was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Tribunal, etc. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-4 order will stand modified by the directions issued by this Court as per the order dated 29.6.2018. The 3rd respondent will be at liberty to reside in the residential house of the petitioner. However, the other children and relative of the 3rd respondent will also be at liberty to visit the 3rd respondent in the residence of the petitioner, but their overnight residence in the residential house of the petitioner could be permitted with the consent of the petitioner. The Tribunal will also ensure that timely visits are made by the officials of the Social Welfare Department or by the Councillor of the local authority concerned or by any of the office bearers of the residents' association of the locality so that they can visit R-3 and inform the 2nd respondent as to whether her peaceful residence is in any manner threatened, etc. 11. It appears that now the 3rd respondent is residing with another of her daughters. 11. It appears that now the 3rd respondent is residing with another of her daughters. If the 3rd respondent opts to reside in the residential house of the petitioner and later she finds that her peaceful residence is in any manner threatened by the petitioner, etc., then the 3rd respondent will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for redressal of her such grievances in that regard, upon which the Tribunal will, after hearing both sides, pass appropriate orders. The 3rd respondent will also be at liberty to seek monetary maintenance either as against the petitioner and the children concerned and if such an application for monetary maintenance is filed before the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing all the affected parties and after conducting inquiry by the competent Revenue official like the Village Officer about the income of all the parties concerned, etc. The Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to the 3rd respondent at the cost of the petitioner. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this judgment to the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.