JUDGMENT : I am considering these two writ petitions jointly, since the order involved in these cases are the same; with one of the petitioners asking for the same to be implemented, while the other praying it to be vacated. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42385/2018, Smt.Priya Nair, is the daughter of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.42654/2018 Smt.Padmaja Nair. For the sake of convenience, I will be referring to the parties by name in this judgment. 3. Smt.Padmaja Nair appears to have approached the Maintenance Tribunal against Smt.Priya Nair, alleging that her daughter was not taking care of her, which led to an order, dated 25/9/2015, being passed by the said Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act ('Maintenance Act' for short), a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018 directing Smt.Priya Nair to pay her Rs.7,500/-per month as monthly maintenance. The allegation of Smt.Priya Nair is that subsequently her mother, Smt.Padmaja Nair, wrote a letter to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, which was transmitted to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, who then unilaterally acted as the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Act and issued Ext.P4 order enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.7,500/-, as ordered in Ext.P3, to Rs.10,000/-. This order has been placed on record as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018. Smt.Priya Nair, asserts that Ext.P4 is incompetent in law and that the Appellate Tribunal has arrogated to itself powers which it did not have while considering the petition by her mother, Smt.Padmaja Nair, routed through the Minister of Revenue. 4. While so, W.P.(C)No.42654/2018 was filed by Smt.Padmaja Nair, requiring directions to the official respondents to implement the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. She asserts in this writ petition that, in spite of the directions therein, Smt.Priya Nair is not paying her even Rs.7,500/-per month and prays that action be taken against her in terms of law. 5. On an earlier occasion, when this matter was considered by me, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, they were relegated to the Mediation Centre for an out of Court settlement, but I am told that such efforts have not yielded fruit. I therefore, proceed to dispose of this matter on its merits. 6. 5. On an earlier occasion, when this matter was considered by me, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, they were relegated to the Mediation Centre for an out of Court settlement, but I am told that such efforts have not yielded fruit. I therefore, proceed to dispose of this matter on its merits. 6. I have heard Smt.Smini Jose, the learned counsel appearing for Smt.Priya Nair and Sri.Unni Namboothiri, the learned counsel engaged by the Kerala State Legal Service Authority on behalf of Smt.Padmaja Nair; Sri.N.B.Sunilnath, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 7. I notice that there is no challenge to the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018; and therefore, the prayer of Smt.Padmaja Nair to have it implemented is virtually without contest. 8. Resultantly, the only issue in dispute between the parties is with respect to the order issued by the Appellate Tribunal, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018, which Smt.Priya Nair says that has been issued by the said Authority without competence. 9. I find some force in the submissions of Smt.Smini Jose, the learned counsel for Smt.Priya Nair, because, the Appellate Authority appears to have assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a letter issued by Smt.Padmaja Nair and routed through the Minister of Revenue. I am sure that this is not the manner in which the senior citizen should have approached the Appellate Authority, particularly in view of Section 16 of the Act. I do not propose to say anything further on this because I am of the firm view that the provisions of law will have to be complied with both sides when they invoke the statutory and equitable jurisdiction of Courts. In the afore perspective and since I find that Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018 has been issued by an Authority whose jurisdiction has not been invoked properly, I deem it appropriate to set it aside; however, leaving full liberty to Smt.Padmaja Nair to approach either the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal or to seek that the amount of maintenance be modified under Section 10 of the Act by the Maintenance Tribunal itself. I also leave her liberty to invoke all other remedies as may be available to her in law and further direct Smt.Priya Nair to comply with the directions of the Maintenance Tribunal, as is available in Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.42385/2018, without fail. If these directions are violated by Smt.Priya Nair, the Maintenance Tribunal will ensure sufficient action is taken against her, including by initiating processes as are authorized by the Act and the Rules thereunder without any avoidable delay, so that the senior citizen, Smt.Padmaja Nair, can live her life with dignity and safety. If the senior citizen, Smt.Padmaja Nair, approaches either the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act or the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act, the said Authorities will consider her appeal/application in terms of law, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months thereafter and issue appropriate orders thereon. These writ petitions are thus ordered.