Murali Purushothaman, J.:—

1. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P7 orders of the Maintenance Tribunal, Kollam constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Act’, for short) and Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice for recovery of the amount ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal.

2. The first respondent has four children including a son. The petitioner is the eldest daughter. According to the petitioner, from 1999 onwards, she along with her husband and two children was residing with her parents in the house in the property extending to 8.33 Ares comprised in R.S Nos. 288/9, 288/10 and 279/79 in Block No. 3 of Thrikkadavur Village, Kollam district. The parents jointly settled the said property in her favour by executing Ext.P9 Settlement Deed No. 1149 of 2007 dated 7.6.2007 of Anchalummodu Sub Registry Office reserving their right of enjoyment over the property including the right of residence in the house and taking income from the property. The petitioner effected mutation and paid tax in her name. Later, certain disputes arose between the petitioner's husband and her father in relation to their money lending business and the petitioner moved out of the family house with her husband and children and they started living in a rented house from 28.4.2009 onwards.

3. The first respondent filed Ext.P1 petition dated 20.4.2010 before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 4 of theseeking cancellation of the Settlement Deed or in the alternative, for awarding maintenance to him. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner resisted Ext. P1 petition contending that the first respondent has earnings to maintain himself and that she has been ousted from the property settled in her favour. She also contended that her father has borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs from her and if he returns the said amount, she would give back the property settled on her. However, she gave an undertaking in writing before the Tribunal that she is ready to give Rs. 4,000/- per month to the first respondent towards his maintenance. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal passed Ext. P2 order directing the petitioner to give Rs. 4,000/- per month as agreed, as maintenance to the first respondent with effect from 1.11.2010. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid maintenance to the first respondent till 30.8.2012.

4. Later, the petitioner's parents jointly executed a cancellation deed No. 2446/2011 dated 24.11.2011 of SRO, Anchalummodu cancelling Ext.P9 Settlement Deed.

5. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition under Section 10 of theseeking alteration in allowance ordered as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the parents have cancelled Ext. P9 Settlement Deed and that the first respondent has earnings to maintain himself and she has no source of income. The first respondent filed Ext.P5 objection to Ext. P4 pointing out that the cancellation deed is challenged by the petitioner in O.S No. 803/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam and that he has no earnings to maintain himself.

6. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not consider Ext. P4 petition filed by her under Section 10, but, considered the application preferred by the first respondent for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. By Ext.P7, the Tribunal refused to enhance the amount of maintenance and confirmed Ext.P2 order of maintenance. Later, at the instance of the Tribunal, the Deputy Tahsildar, the third respondent, initiated revenue recovery proceedings and issued Ext.P8 demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of Rs. 1,12,000/- towards arrears of maintenance for a period of 28 months. Exts.P2, P7 orders and P8 notice are impugned in the writ petition.

7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 23.6.2021 contending that he is aged 84 years and had suffered cardiac arrest and has no earnings to maintain himself and his only property was settled on the petitioner on the belief that she would maintain him. Since his sole property was settled on the petitioner, he could not give any property to the other children. The first respondent also states that the petitioner's husband is doing business in money lending and has an exceptionally good house in 72 cents of land and the averment that she has no source of income is incorrect. It is also stated that the petitioner is leading a luxurious life. He has filed Exts. R1 (a) to (c) applications before the Tribunal pointing out that the petitioner has defaulted payment of maintenance as ordered in Ext. P2 and requesting for enhancement of maintenance amount as the amount awarded is inadequate. Since the petitioner defaulted payment of monthly maintenance, Ext.P9 Settlement Deed was cancelled by the 1st respondent. Ext.P7 has been passed pursuant to Exts.R1 (a) to (c) applications submitted by him. The 1st respondent states that he is unable to maintain himself and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the averments of the first respondent in the counter affidavit. She has filed I.A No. 4/2021 producing Ext. P10 postal receipt to show that she had filed Ext.P4 petition under Section 10 of theand I.A No. 5/2021 seeking amendment of the writ petition incorporating a prayer to direct the second respondent to dispose of Ext. P4 petition after hearing all parties.

9. The main contention of the petitioner is that while receiving maintenance from her pursuant to Ext. P2 order, the first respondent cancelled Ext. P9 settlement deed without informing her. The prayer in Ext. P1 application was either to cancel the settlement deed or to award maintenance. Since Ext.P9 settlement deed was cancelled on 24.11.2011, he is not entitled to get maintenance at least from that date onwards. The first respondent cannot seek the help of Section 23 of theto set aside the Settlement Deed as the came into force only on 24.8.2008 and the settlement deed was executed on 07.06.2007. It is also contended that the father has not demanded maintenance from the other three children. The father is engaged in money lending business apart from carrying out the business of selling Iron Nails, whereas the petitioner has no means to pay the maintenance.

10. Heard Sri. T.M. Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jayadhar V., the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. K.M. Faisal, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

11. Ext.P1 application is filed by the 1st respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 4 of theagainst the petitioner stating that she is not maintaining him. The remedy sought before the Tribunal is to cancel the Settlement Deed or for ordering maintenance. The Tribunal has passed Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner to give Rs. 4,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 1st respondent as agreed by her in writing. The 1st respondent has filed Ext. R1 (a) application dated 18.10.2011 before the Tribunal stating that the petitioner defaulted payment of maintenance ordered in Ext. P2 and praying to re-convey the property settled on her and to enhance the maintenance amount. Ext.P9 Settlement Deed was cancelled by the 1st respondent on 24.11.2011. It is pursuant to Ext.R1 (a) application that Ext.P7 order was passed by the Tribunal. In Ext.P7 order, it was noted by the Tribunal that the Settlement Deed was cancelled by the 1st respondent and the Tribunal, without enhancing the amount of maintenance, confirmed Ext.P2 order. Ext.P4 application is stated to be filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of thefor alteration of allowance in the change of circumstances pursuant to cancellation of Settlement Deed by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal considered Ext.R1 (a) application of the 1st respondent without considering Ext.P4 application.

12. It is admitted by both sides in the counter affidavit and in the reply affidavit that the cancellation deed No. 2446/2011 dated 24.11.2011 of SRO, Anchalummodu cancelling Ext.P9 Settlement Deed was declared void by the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Kollam by judgment dated 17.10.2016 in O.S. No. 803 of 2012 filed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the 1st respondent against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 803 of 2012 was dismissed by the Additional District Court, Kollam by judgment dated 21.12.2020 in A.S. No. 10/2017. The copies of the said judgments were made available by the counsel for the petitioner for the perusal of this Court.

13. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent, while receiving the maintenance amount in pursuance of Ext.P2 order has cancelled Ext. P9 Settlement Deed and therefore, he is not entitled to get maintenance at least from the date of cancellation of the Settlement Deed. During the pendency of this writ petition, the cancellation deed No. 2446/2011 dated 24.11.2011 of SRO, Anchalummodu, cancelling Ext.P9 Settlement Deed was declared void by the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Kollam and the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Additional District Court, Kollam and the said judgment has become final. Therefore, it is no longer open for the petitioner to contend that, in view of the cancellation of Settlement Deed, the 1st respondent is not entitled to get maintenance.

14. Ext.P2 order has been passed by the Tribunal on the basis of an undertaking in writing by the petitioner to the effect that she is ready to give Rs. 4,000/- per month to the 1st respondent towards maintenance. The amount requested by the 1st respondent for his maintenance was Rs. 10,000/- per month. Ext.P2 is dated 30.11.2010. The application of the 1st respondent for enhancement of the amount of compensation was not allowed by the Tribunal, since, at the time of consideration of the said application, Ext. P9 Settlement Deed stood cancelled. Ext.P2 order to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the 1st respondent was confirmed as per Ext.P7. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner before the Tribunal, she cannot now contend that she is not liable to maintain the 1st respondent. In view of the said undertaking, the income of the petitioner and other factors to be considered provided under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (‘Rules, 2009’, for short) are not relevant and the contention that there is non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 13 (2) and (3) of the Rules, 2009 is not sustainable. The petitioner must have agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the 1st respondent considering her income and the value of the property settled on her.

15. Since the Tribunal has not passed an order under Section 23 of theto declare the Settlement Deed as void, the contention of the petitioner that the came into force only on 24.8.2008 and the settlement deed was executed on 07.06.2007 and therefore the 1st respondent cannot seek the aid of Section 23 of the Act, need not be considered.

16. Another contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not demanded maintenance from the other three children. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent contended that, since his sole property has been settled on the petitioner, he requires protection and maintenance from the petitioner. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Section 5(5) of thewhich reads as follows:—

“(5) An application for maintenance under sub-section (1) may be filled against one or more persons:

Provided that such children or relative may implead the other person liable to maintain parent in the application for maintenance.”

17. The petitioner did not take steps to implead her siblings in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner in this proceedings does not merit consideration.

18. The 1st respondent is now aged 84 years and was aged 73 years at the time of filing Ext.P1 application for maintenance. He might have had income from money lending or other business years back. As directed by this Court the District Social Welfare Officer, Kollam had visited the 1st respondent and the petitioner on 26.03.2021 and submitted a report dated 28.03.2021.The District Social Welfare Officer has reported that the 1st respondent need the support of others for day to day activities and is living in the house along with his 81 year old wife. The 1st respondent has told the said officer that he had income from money lending business previously, but now he has no income and has to incur lot of expenses towards medicines. Going by the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and the report of the District Social Welfare Officer, there is no reason to disbelieve the 1st respondent, a senior citizen, that, he is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings and out of the property owned by him and is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner as ordered in Ext.P2. As already noted, the amount of Rs. 4,000/- was ordered in the year 2010. Since, even the payment of that amount was defaulted for more than 28 months, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P2 and P7 orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Ext.P8 revenue recovery notice. The interim order dated 31.03.2015 is vacated. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.