JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the son of the senior citizen - Smt. Indira B., with whom we are concerned in this case. He impugns Ext.P21 order of the first respondent – Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act'), which orders that the senior citizen be allowed to stay with the second respondent – her sister; and consequently that she be relocated to the latter's home immediately. 2. Sri. Nandakumar - learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt. Pooja Menon - appearing for the petitioner, submitted that his client has been constrained to impugn Ext.P21 because, it has proceeded on an unwarranted basis that his client did not take care of his mother in spite of Ext.P13 order, dated 29.10.2021, earlier issued. He submitted that the facts cannot be far from truth, since his client had provided all necessary facilities to his mother, including a full time caretaker; but that the second respondent, who is her sister, took up the matter again with the Tribunal, on an allegation that Ext.P13 was being violated, which then culminated in Ext.P21 order. He argued that Ext.P21 is the result of non-application of mind and improper exercise of power, particularly because the directions therein cannot be given effect under the 'Act', especially when it says that the senior citizen be given custody to the second respondent – her sister. The learned senior counsel asserted that his client's mother is now living comfortably in the company of his client and another son, who both see her on a regular basis; and therefore prayed that Ext.P21 be set aside. 3. Au contraire, Smt. Beena Sarasan - second respondent appearing in person, submitted that though the petitioner accepted Ext.P13 order without demur, he violated it flagrantly and confined his mother – the senior citizen, in unconscionable circumstances; and therefore, that she was constrained to approach the Maintenance Tribunal for further orders. She argued that the Maintenance Tribunal deputed a Social Justice Officer along with her, who visited the senior citizen and that a report was submitted, detailing the exact situation under which she has been housed. She added that since the Social Justice Officer was also concerned by the manner in which the senior citizen was treated, the Maintenance Tribunal was wholly without error, in having issued Ext.P21. She added that since the Social Justice Officer was also concerned by the manner in which the senior citizen was treated, the Maintenance Tribunal was wholly without error, in having issued Ext.P21. She, however, added that her intent is not to take custody of the senior citizen, or to claim anything out of her; but that she be given good care and attention in the winter years of her life, more so because she is now suffering from minor dementia. She added that it is only on account of her love for her sister that she offered to the Maintenance Tribunal to take her with her and maintain her with the dignity she requires; but left it to this Court to take appropriate decision in this regard, saying that her intention is only as afore. 4. I notice from the files that several interim orders have been issued by this Court, including the ones dated 27.09.2023 and 01.11.2023. Through these orders, this Court had permitted Smt. Beena Sarasan and her other siblings to visit the senior citizen, particularly during her last birthday; and a report has also been placed before this Court by the Social Justice Officer, along with a memo of the learned Government Pleader dated 09.11.2023. 5. Sri. Ramkumar Nambiar – learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court in matters relating to mental health cases, submitted that since the senior citizen is suffering from dementia, she certainly requires imperative care and that the consortium of her loved ones, not merely her sons, but also her siblings and such other relatives, since it is extremely important to her continued life. He, therefore, beseeched this Court to look into the report of the Social Justice Officer very carefully and issue appropriate orders. 6. The aforementioned report of the Social Justice Officer reads as under : “As per the direction of the Honourable High Court of Kerala on behalf of the Judgement on case no. WP(C) 13607/2023 dtd. 27.09.2023, the Maintenance Officer has accompanied with the 2nd respondent Smt. Beena Sarasan to visit Smt. Indira Balagangadharon at Jayaprabha, Abhayanagar, House No.180, Opposite Hindustan Latex on 03/10/2023 Tuesday at 12.30 pm. Smt. Beena Sarasan has spent around 45 minutes with her sister Smt. Indira Balagangadharan in the presence of Maintenance Officer. Both sisters seem happy with the interaction. 27.09.2023, the Maintenance Officer has accompanied with the 2nd respondent Smt. Beena Sarasan to visit Smt. Indira Balagangadharon at Jayaprabha, Abhayanagar, House No.180, Opposite Hindustan Latex on 03/10/2023 Tuesday at 12.30 pm. Smt. Beena Sarasan has spent around 45 minutes with her sister Smt. Indira Balagangadharan in the presence of Maintenance Officer. Both sisters seem happy with the interaction. The untrained ladies appointed as care takers for the purpose of caring the Dementia suspected senior citizen are not competent for the training and caring. It is better to appoint trained and experienced persons to look after her. We came to know the appointed ladies have separate room for sleeping and hence the senior citizen is sleeping alone during night. The Petitioner arranged infrastructure facilities such as mosquito nets, water heater, washing machine, wall fans, mixer grinder, emergency lamp, refrigerator etc for the better support of her. but couldn't see nothing for recreational purpose of the aged senior citizen. She appears to be healthy and living in the hygienic manner. She couldn't get opportunity to mingle and interact with dear and near ones. even though she has five siblings and two sons, She lives in the amidst of two care takers, it never make the mental well being of her. We suggest that it is better to give opportunity to interact siblings and grandchildren to visit her in regular intervals of time to give support and care for her remaining life. it is also reported that the maintenance officer is not a competent authority to interpret the mental report of Indira Balagangadharan” (sic). 7. I do not propose to speak on the merits of the contentions of the rival parties, or even on the contents of the report of the Social Justice Officer afore extracted; but find it necessary to remind everyone involved that it is the life of the senior citizen we are now involved with. Internecine egos or disputes cannot be allowed to cast any adverse reflection on her dignity or self respect, notwithstanding the fact that she is suffering from dementia. This does not require to be expatiated because the petitioner is her son, who normally ought to be more concerned about this; while the second respondent is her sister, who says that her only intent is to make sure that she lives well for the rest of her life. 8. This does not require to be expatiated because the petitioner is her son, who normally ought to be more concerned about this; while the second respondent is her sister, who says that her only intent is to make sure that she lives well for the rest of her life. 8. Indubitably, prima facie, the report of the Social Justice Officer causes some consternation, though I do not propose to speak on it as being the truth at this stage, since it will require a proper enquiry. 9. As I have already said above, the petitioner does not have a case against Ext.P13 order earlier issued by the Maintenance Tribunal; and, on the contrary, he affirms that he accepts it. His only contention is that Ext.P21 ought not to have been issued without a proper enquiry, particularly as to the condition of the senior citizen. 10. I am, therefore, without doubt that though Ext.P21 cannot find my favour fully at this stage; and that a further enquiry by the Maintenance Tribunal becomes imperative. This is not opposed by the petitioner either because, he asserts vehemently, through his learned senior counsel, that every care and facility required for his mother, to live in a dignified manner, has already been provided to her. 11. That said, there is one aspect that this Court also intends to say adscititiously, namely, that as long as the senior citizen wants such company or presence, no one would be authorised to deny the same to her, particularly that of her siblings and close relatives. The report of the Social Justice Officer speaks on this and it recommends that she be offered the pleasure of such meetings on a regular basis. This shall also be kept in mind by the Maintenance Tribunal, when further orders are issued. 12. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P21; with a consequential direction to the Maintenance Tribunal to reconsider the matter, adverting to my observations above and specifically to the report of the Social Justice Officer and to the suggestions offered by Sri. Ramkumar Nambiar as afore; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 13. Ramkumar Nambiar as afore; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 13. In the meanwhile, I direct the jurisdictional Social Justice Officer to visit the senior citizen on a weekly basis and favour his/her report to the Maintenance Tribunal for further action. As regards the request of Smt. Beena Sarasan, for her and siblings to meet her sister – the senior citizen, is concerned, she will be at liberty to move the Maintenance Tribunal any time for this purpose; which shall be considered and acceded to, in terms of law.