JUDGMENT : The petitioners are before this Court impugning Ext.P10 order of the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 ('the Maintenance Act' for short). 2. According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 1st petitioner and father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner, has approached the Maintenance Tribunal with a baseless complaint against them, alleging that he and his wife were being ill-treated by them and consequentially driven out of their residential property. The petitioners assert that, in fact, the property in question had been mortgaged by the 3rd respondent when he had availed of a loan in the past and that when its repayment was defaulted, the 1st petitioner was forced to discharge the same, using the gold ornaments of the 2nd petitioner, given to her as “patrimony at the time of marriage“(sic) by her father and that the 3rd respondent, therefore, executed a Settlement Deed, document No.2788/2009, in favour of the 1st petitioner thus settling the property in question in his name, as also a Sale Deed with respect to another property, bearing document No.749/2011, in favour of both the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs, though it was shown as a lesser amount in the said deed. The petitioners have a further case that in addition to the above amount, another Rs.10 lakhs was paid to the 1st petitioner's elder brother at the instance of the 3rd respondent and thus, that the property in question now fully belongs to them. 3. The petitioners submit that, however, the Maintenance Tribunal, without considering any of the afore factual circumstances in its proper perspective, has allowed the complaint of the 3rd respondent through Ext.P10 order, setting aside the Settlement Deed, bearing No.2788/2009, under Section 23 of the Maintenance Act and they plead that this order be set aside. They also say that they had filed an appeal against Ext.P10 before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance Act, but that it was rejected holding that no appeal is maintainable under Section 16 thereof, except at the instance of the Senior Citizen. The petitioners thus pray that Ext.P10 be set aside and that the property in question be restored to them. 4. The petitioners thus pray that Ext.P10 be set aside and that the property in question be restored to them. 4. In answer to the afore submissions of Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai-learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil-learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that the afore allegations and assertions made by the petitioners are wholly baseless and untenable, since their own objections, namely Ext.P9, preferred before the Maintenance Tribunal, would establish the facts to the contrary. He says that the 3rd respondent and his wife suffered immeasurably at the hands of the petitioners and that they were thrown out of their residence, forcing them to stay inside a cattle shed next to it; and that this was, in fact, seen personally by the Maintenance Tribunal when he made a visit before Ext.P10 had been issued. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P10 be left uninterdicted, adding that the Settlement Deed in question, namely Ext.P1, has a clear stipulation that it was being executed on condition that the 1st petitioner will provide the basic needs and essential amenities to the petitioner and his wife for the rest of their lives. He says that this obligation has been found to have been totally violated by the petitioners and therefore, that Ext.P10 is without fault. 5. The learned Government Pleader-Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath appearing on behalf the official respondents, submits that as per the earlier interim directions of this Court in this writ petition, the Social Justice Officer visited the Senior Citizen and has recorded his statement, wherein he has reiterated the allegations made by him in the complaint preferred before the Maintenance Tribunal. He says that the Senior Citizen has now told the Social Justice Officer that he is presently living with his daughter, his wife having now expired and that he visits the property in question occasionally but without, in any manner, having any interaction with the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader adds that the Senior Citizen appears to be firm in his resolve that he does not require any maintenance from the petitioners on account of the illtreatment he and his wife faced from them. The learned Government Pleader adds that the Senior Citizen appears to be firm in his resolve that he does not require any maintenance from the petitioners on account of the illtreatment he and his wife faced from them. On the merits of Ext.P10 order, the learned Government Pleader submits that, as is manifest there-from, the Maintenance Tribunal had personally visited the Senior Citizen and his wife and had found that they were living inside the cattle shed and that they were forced to cook in a small room adjacent to it. He says that the condition of the Senior Citizen at that time was so pathetic that the Maintenance Tribunal had no other option but to issue Ext.P10 order. He thus says that Ext.P10 order is irreproachable and cannot be faulted by the petitioners . 6. I have considered the afore submissions made on behalf of the parties and have given it a great amount of thought. 7. Since the gravamen of the submissions of Sri.R.Rjasekharan Pillai-learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the objections preferred by his clients, namely Ext.P9, before the Maintenance Tribunal, has not been properly considered and that Ext.P10 is non speaking order, I have examined them carefully from such stand point. However, I am afraid that these submissions cannot find favour with this Court because, as is clear from Ext.P9 itself, the specific contention of the petitioners is that the Senior Citizen had shifted to the cattle shed on 10.12.2014 on his own, and remained there for the next two years ago thus “stage managing” the event at the time when the Maintenance Tribunal visited them. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners never objected to the residence of the Senior Citizen and his wife in their house but that he deliberately shifted to the cattle shed on 10.12.2014 so as "to tarnish and defame" them. The averments in Ext.P9 objections are solely as above, and I deem it appropriate, therefore, to extract them as under so as to enable its full reading: “The respondents are maintaining the petitioner and 1st respondent used to send thousands of rupees for his parents treatments and other needs and even now is ready to maintain and look after the petitioner as long as they have means for it. But the petitioner having a peculiar character of agitating for everything and some times even against himself is not cooperating with the respondents-especially with the 2nd respondent living with her two minor children aging 6 and 4. On 10.12.2014 the petitioner, who was residing with the respondents in their house till then, shifted his residence to a room situated outside the house in the property and started residence there with certain malfide intention and also to tarnish and defame the respondents before public. The respondents are ready to give the respondents all the necessary amenities and physical needs to the petitioner as has been providing so far and is ready to allow the petitioner to enjoy his life interest and also to take yields from the property mentioned in the Settlement Deed. Moreover respondents are ready to give necessary support and care to petitioner in his old age”. 8. It is ineluctable from the afore extraction that the submissions now made by Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pilllai, that what was noticed by the Tribunal when he visited the Senior Citizens were “stage managed” cannot obtain approval because the petitioners themselves concede that the Senior Citizen was living in the cattle shed at least from 10.12.2014 and until Ext.P10 order had been issued almost two years later. 9. Of course, I am also cognizant of the further submissions of the learned counsel that the Senior Citizen is not really interested in the property, which is evidenced by the fact that he has executed Ext.P15 settlement deed in favour of his daughter a mere two weeks after Ext.P10 order had been issued and that all this had been done by him at his daughter's instigation. Even when I hear Sri.Rajasekharan Pillai on the afore lines, I am certain that this will not alter the situation, in any manner, because it is up to the Senior Citizen to deal with his properties that he may choose and I infer, merely because of Ext.P15 Settlement Deed, that he had approached the Tribunal against the petitioners solely to obtain back the property in question. This is more so because, as I have already indicated above, the petitioners themselves concede that the Senior Citizen and his wife were living in the said cattle shed at least from December 2014 and there is nothing on record, except the unsubstantiated statement of the petitioners, that they had taken care of him in terms of the obligation in Ext.P1 document. 10. As regards the merits of Ext.P10 order is concerned, I find that the Maintenance Tribunal has acted well within the jurisdiction and, in fact, deserves the appreciation of this Court because he visited the Senior Citizen personally to take stock of the factual circumstances, rather than merely relying on the reports from other officers, before the said order had been issued. The Tribunal has then unequivocally recorded in the impugned order that he saw the Senior Citizen and his wife living in squalour, in a dilapidated old cattle shed, forced to use a small room adjacent to it as a kitchen; and I am certain in my mind that these would clearly demonstrate the pathos to which they were subjected to by the petitioners at the relevant time. The fact that the Senior Citizen is presently living with his daughter would not after this and the situation that he had to face, along with his wife, for more than two years during the years 2014-16 would be sufficient justification for the Maintenance Tribunal in having issued Ext.P10 order. Resultantly, I cannot find Ext.P10 order to be, in any manner, in error or to be not deserving the imprimatur of this Court; and consequently dismiss this writ petition, approving Ext.P10 and directing the competent statutory Authorities to ensure that action pursuant there-to is complied with implicitly.