JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is stated to be the son of the 2nd respondent-senior citizen and impugns Ext.P9 order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short), as being illegal and unlawful. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 gift deed executed by his mother in his favour in the year 2012 has been set aside illegally by the Maintenance Tribunal, invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, alleging that he did not take care of her or provide her with the basic amenities in spite of the fact that the said document contains a specific covenant to that effect. He says that the document was, in fact, executed for consideration and that he had still taken care of his mother more than satisfactorily and therefore, that Ext.P9 order ought not to have been issued at all. 3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-senior citizen Sri. Johnson Varikkappallil, submits that his client was driven out of the house, where she was residing along with the petitioner and his wife, in the evening on 11.02.2013 and that she was also assaulted. He adds that she had been subjected to such objectionable behaviour by the petitioner and his wife many times earlier, but that she could not even approach the Police because the wife of the petitioner was a member of the local Panchayat. He further says that the senior citizen was pushed to the corner and therefore, had no other option but to flee from the house in question and to take refuge with her daughter, the 4th respondent herein, in the house of her husband and that she is now happy and at peace with them. The learned counsel, therefore, says that Ext.P9 is irreproachable and that it be allowed to operate without any interdiction from this Court. 4. Sri. The learned counsel, therefore, says that Ext.P9 is irreproachable and that it be allowed to operate without any interdiction from this Court. 4. Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that the reasons that impelled the Maintenance Tribunal to issue Ext.P9 order are luculent from Ext.P9 itself and that as long as the petitioner is unable to demonstrate and establish that he had provided for the basic needs and amenities to his mother, he cannot obtain the locus to challenge Ext.P9 order, particularly because the gift deed in question contains a specific covenant that he shall provide so. The learned Government Pleader also, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be allowed to be implemented in its full force, so that the 2nd respondent-senior citizen can live the rest of her life in dignity and safety. 5. In response to the afore submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Baby Mathew, submits that contrary to the allegations made against his client, the senior citizen was not driven out of the house on 11.02.2013, but that she went off on her own, without assigning any reason, even though she was taken care very well by his client. He says that she presumably did so because she has more affection towards her daughter and son-in-law. There are certain other insinuations that were also made against the senior citizen-mother which, for the sake of propriety, I deem it appropriate not to record in this judgment. In effect, the petitioner's contention, as voiced by his learned counsel, is that the entire problem arose because of the misdemeanour and misbehaviour of the senior citizen and that his client-the son, has behaved like a model child and therefore, that Ext.P9 cannot operate. 6. On the aspects of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question whether the gift deed in question, namely Ext.P3, was executed for consideration of Rs. 2 Lakhs paid by his client or whether the senior citizen is right in making the assertion that she was ill-treated by the petitioner could have been decided by the Maintenance Tribunal only after following procedure under Section 6 of the Act, which warrants that evidence be allowed to be led and recorded in the manner of a summons case. He says that this opportunity having been not given to his client, the said order must fail. He says that this opportunity having been not given to his client, the said order must fail. 7. Before I proceed to analyse the submissions made on behalf of the parties as afore, I must record that this Court had also made attempts in finding an amiable settlement between them, for which purpose, I had, through the order dated 08.03.2019, directed the Social Justice Officer to visit the residence of the 2nd respondent-senior citizen in the presence of the petitioner, so that they could talk to each other and attempt a resolution on the disputes between them. However, the report dated 14.03.2019 paints a very grim picture because the mother appears to be apprehensive of even talking to her son and she seems to have made her mind very clear to the Officer that she would not like to stay with him or his wife any longer. 8. To make matters worse, when this matter was pending before this Court, an incident was reported wherein, the petitioner appears to have travelled nearly 20 km to the place where the 4th respondent-his sister is residing and he is reported to have attacked her husband leading to grievous injuries to him. Of course, the petitioner alleges that he had gone there in connection with his business activities and that he was then attacked by his brother-in-law, the 4th respondent's husband, leading to the registration of a counter case. 9. I have recorded the afore only to show the deep-seated acrimony between the parties in this case and the manner in which they behave when it comes to the matters of worldly possessions, oblivious of their obligations and duties as children of senior citizens. 10. Be that as it may, the province of this Court is not to make philosophical declarations but to consider the matter on its merits going by the provisions of the Act and the applicable Regulations. 11. As I have already indicated above, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Baby Mathew, is that Ext.P9 order is bad since is has been issued without giving his client an opportunity to cross examine the 2nd respondent-senior citizen as is done in a summons case. 11. As I have already indicated above, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Baby Mathew, is that Ext.P9 order is bad since is has been issued without giving his client an opportunity to cross examine the 2nd respondent-senior citizen as is done in a summons case. He has hinged this argument on the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, wherein there is no doubt that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal has to be recorded in the manner of a Summons Trial. However, this is not to say that the complaints under the Act are to be dealt with and concluded like criminal cases, but that sufficient opportunities be given to all the parties so as to establish their rival version, to the satisfaction of the Maintenance Tribunal. The issues involved before the said Tribunal being with relation to the lives of senior citizens, who require the protection and care of the Society as a whole, I cannot stretch these provisions to mean that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal should be conducted like a criminal case. I, therefore, repel the submissions of Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as being completely untenable. 12. That said, however, it does not mean that the Maintenance Tribunal can complete the proceedings in any manner that they deem fit. They have to certainly follow the basic principles of law and to ensure that all parties obtain equal opportunity of establishing their cases and their contentions. 13. In the case at hand, going by Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioner, there is not even a whisper therein that he had paid Rs. 2 Lakhs as consideration for Ext.P3 gift deed. The only allegation is that he has paid Rs. 2 Lakhs, without mentioning the date on which it has been paid, to his mother and that she has deposited the said amount into the account of her daughter's son. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity to cross examine the 2nd respondent- senior citizen on this ground does not hold force in any manner whatsoever. 14. Similar is the case with respect to the assertion of the petitioner that he took full care of his mother. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity to cross examine the 2nd respondent- senior citizen on this ground does not hold force in any manner whatsoever. 14. Similar is the case with respect to the assertion of the petitioner that he took full care of his mother. Again, in Ext.P2, except vaguely denying the allegations in Ext.P1 and saying that they are not true, the petitioner has not chosen to explain how his mother was forced to leave the house where she was residing with him and his wife; and in what circumstances she was compelled to do so. Obviously, therefore, until the petitioner raises a dispute on these issues, the Maintenance Tribunal had no option, but to accept the pleadings on record and to proceed to finalise the matter, since the requirement of formal evidence would have arisen only if pleadings warranting it had been made. 15. I say reiteratingly, that had the petitioner, even in a whispering voice, stated in Ext.P2 that his mother had left the residential house not on account of the allegations made by her but for certain other reasons, this Court may have found some justification in acceding to the request of the petitioner. In the absence of any such material, I see absolutely no reason to disturb Ext.P9 and I, therefore, deem it appropriate to affirm the same. 16. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming Ext.P9 order of the Maintenance Tribunal and directing the official Authorities to ensure that the directions therein are implicitly complied with in its letter and spirit, so that the senior citizen can now live her life in peace and dignity, without being dependent on any person. 17. This writ petition is thus ordered.