JUDGMENT : The first respondent herein is the father of the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of the petitioners. The 1st respondent is a senior citizen. He approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Ottapalam constituted u/s.7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (for short 'Act 2007') with an application for maintenance. Exhibit.P1 is the order passed by the Tribunal. As per Exhibit.P1, respondents 2, 3, 4, and 5 in that proceedings were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-each to the petitioner in that proceedings (the 1st respondent herein) as maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in Exhibit.P1 order. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not in the station at the time when Ext.P1 order was passed. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioners. The definite case of the petitioners is that they have not received any summons from the Tribunal. The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, directed the petitioners to pay maintenance. The counsel submitted that the petitioners have not complied with even the interim order passed by this Court while admitting the writ petition. The counsel submitted that a huge amount is due as arrears as per Ext.P1 order. 4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 21.06.2021, this Court directed the Government Pleader to find out whether summons was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The Government Pleader, after getting instructions from the Tribunal, submitted that summons was issued to the petitioners by ordinary post, and thereafter Ext.P1 order is passed. From the above submission of the Government Pleader, it is clear that there is no evidence to show that summons was served on the petitioners which was sent by ordinary post, before passing Ext.P1 order. 5. As per Rule 6 of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (for short 'Rule'), a notice should be issued to the opposite party and the rule insists, certain specific modes of service. 5. As per Rule 6 of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (for short 'Rule'), a notice should be issued to the opposite party and the rule insists, certain specific modes of service. Rule 6 of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 is extracted hereunder: “Notice to the Opposite Party.-(1) Once the Tribunal is satisfied on the points mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, it shall cause to be issued to each person against whom an application for maintenance has been filed, a notice in Form 'C' directing them to show cause why the application should not be granted, along with a copy of the application and its enclosures, in the following manner:- (a) by hand delivery through the applicant if he so desires, else through a process server; or (b) by registered post with acknowledgment due. (2) The notice shall require the opposite party to appear in person, on the date to be specified in the notice and to show cause, in writing, as to why the application should not be granted and shall also inform that, in case he fails to respond to it, the Tribunal shall process ex parte. (3) Simultaneously with the issue of notice under sub-rule (1) and (2), the applicant (s) shall also be informed of the date mentioned in sub-rule (2), by a notice issued in Form 'C”. (4) The provisions of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply, mutatis mutandis, for the purpose of service of notice under sub-rule (2) and (3). 6. A reading of the above Rule, it is clear that the notice is to be issued to the opposite party by hand delivery through the applicant if he so desires or else through a process server. The other mode prescribed as per the Rule is by registered post with acknowledgment due. Only these three modes are prescribed as per Rule 6 to issue notice to the opposite party. Sending notice by ordinary post is not a prescribed mode to effect service to an opposite party in an application filed as per Section 5 of the Act 2007. The proof of service of notice to the opposite party is necessary, before considering an application u/s.5 of the Act 2007. Sending notice by ordinary post is not a prescribed mode to effect service to an opposite party in an application filed as per Section 5 of the Act 2007. The proof of service of notice to the opposite party is necessary, before considering an application u/s.5 of the Act 2007. This is clear from Section 5(3) of the Act 2007, which reads like this:- “5. Application for maintenance. (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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.” From the above provision also it is clear that, giving notice before the inquiry is mandatory. The term "giving notice" normally means that the notice should be delivered to the opposite party. Sending notice by ordinary post can't be treated as "giving notice" mentioned in Section 5(3) of the Act 2007, especially when such a mode of service is not contemplated in Rule 6(1)(a) & (b). Section 6(3) of the Act 2007 says that for securing the attendance of children or relative, the Tribunal shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per proviso to Section 6(4) of the Act 2007, the Tribunal can proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte if the opposite party is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Tribunal. Section 6(5) of the Act 2007 says that, if the opposite party is residing out of India, the summons shall be served by the Tribunal through such authority as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass the final order only after giving notice in a mode prescribed in Act 2007 and its Rules. Sending notice by ordinary post is not sufficient compliance with the Act 2007 and its rules. 7. Admittedly there is no evidence to show that summons is received by the petitioners as per the Act 2007 and its rules, at the time when Ext.P1 order is passed. Sending notice by ordinary post is not sufficient compliance with the Act 2007 and its rules. 7. Admittedly there is no evidence to show that summons is received by the petitioners as per the Act 2007 and its rules, at the time when Ext.P1 order is passed. There are specific averments in the writ petition that the petitioners were abroad at the time when the proceedings were initiated by the Tribunal and when Ext.P1 order was passed. The Tribunal has also no case that the summons was issued by registered post. 8. From the above facts it is clear that Ext.P1 order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the order passed against the petitioners alone can be set aside and the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal. But, admittedly the 1st respondent is the father of the petitioners. The petitioners are bound to maintain their father if he is not in a position to maintain himself. All other contentions of the petitioners can be raised before the Maintenance Tribunal. But, as an interim arrangement, I think the petitioners should jointly pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-to the 1st respondent. The remand of this case can be with such a condition. Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P1 order passed against the petitioners alone is set aside on condition that the petitioners will pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-to the 1st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. If the petitioners produce a copy of this judgment along with a receipt showing the payment of Rs.20,000/-to the 1st respondent as directed by this Court, the Tribunal will restore the claim of the 1st respondent against the petitioners alone is concerned and pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and the 1st respondent in accordance to the law. 3. I make it clear that I have not considered the case on merits. The petitioners and the 1st respondent are free to raise all their contentions before the Maintenance Tribunal.