JUDGMENT : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning Ext.P10 order dated 12th December 2023 passed in K.Dis : H – 3101(A) 23 by the Ottappalam Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate. 2. The first respondent herein resides with his son Suresh, daughter in law and grand daughter in a portion of the house in ownership and possession of his wife Mrs.Parvathidevi. Their daughter, Ushadevi also resides in the house. The petitioners are brothers of Mrs.Parvathidevi, who is wife of first respondent. It is stated that the married life of the daughter of the first respondent did not get long well and she is now residing separately from her husband along with her mother. The daughter of the first respondent, Ushadevi, diagnosed depression and had become mentally frustrated. A complaint was filed by Parvathydevi against her son Suresh in Maintenance Tribunal, Ottappalam on 6th January 2023. Parvathi Devi also obtained protection order against the first respondent, his son and daughter in law from the Court of Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The order was passed on 20th February 2023 in CMP No.1880 of 2023 in M.C.39 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ottapalam. It is also stated that daughter in law obtained order of protection against the petitioners and her mother in law on 22nd March 2023 from the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ottapalam in CMP No.2763/2023 in MC No.60/23. The Maintenance Tribunal dismissed the application preferred by Parvathidevi, wife of the first respondent herein vide order dated 27th June 2023 and an appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 2nd February 2024 by the Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad. Thereafter the application was preferred by the first respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal Ottapalam on 24th March 2023 in which the impugned order in Ext.P10 came to be passed directing the petitioners that they should not interfere with the family members of the complainant and create further problems to the complainant and that the peaceful life of the complainant who is a senior citizen and his daughter who is under severe mental stress should not be disturbed by them. It is further ordered that it will be dealt with under the Protection and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 without further trial. 3. It is further ordered that it will be dealt with under the Protection and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 without further trial. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal does not have a power to pass the injunction order as ordered in impugned Ext.P10 order. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to pass an order for providing maintenance to the senior citizen or the parents. It is also submitted that the complaint even otherwise was not maintainable as the petitioners would not come within the definition of ‘relative’ under Section 2(g) of the Act. 4. I see some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the brothers of wife of the first respondent. They do not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. Further, the Maintenance Tribunal does not have power to issue an injunction order as passed in the impugned order Ext.P10. In view thereof the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order in Ext.P10 is set aside.