Contesting the claim of N. D. Varkey that actor Lissy Priyadarsan is his daughter, the actor is to file an appeal in the Kerala High Court for vacating an ex parte order of the Muvattupuzha Revenue Divisional Officer asking her to pay maintenance to Mr. Varkey.
Jaiji Itten, counsel appearing for Lissy told The Hindu that the appeal would be filed after the court vacation. He said that Lissy would reiterate in the appeal that Varkey was not her father and he had not been known to her for the past 40 years.
She would also submit that she was prepared to disprove Mr. Varkey’s claim that he was her father. Counsel said that she had already been paying maintenance to her mother.
He said that in fact, Lissy had already deposited an amount of Rs 1.15 lakh with the Ernaklulam District Collector as ordered by a single judge of the Kerala High Court towards the maintenance arrears. Varkey had also given an undertaking that if his plea was dismissed by the maintenance tribunal, he would refund the amount.
He said that the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, under section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizens Act 2007, ordered Lissy to pay her father Rs. 4,500 per month for his daily expenses and Rs. 1,000 for medicines from January 1, 2010 until further orders.
He said that this order was an ex parte order and Lissy wanted the High Court to lift the order and pass a fresh order after hearing her version.
A single judge had ordered payment of the maintenance arrears on a petition filed by Mr. Varkey. He contended that Lissy’s refusal to pay the maintenance amount was tantamount to contempt of court. However, the court had dropped the contempt proceedings when she informed the court of depositing of the amount with the District Collector who was an appellate authority under the Act.
In fact, Mr. Varkey had been given legal aid by the High Court Legal Service Committee for fighting the case. P.M. Mohammad Shiraz, counsel appointed by the committee told The Hindu that the deposit amount was yet to be disbursed to Mr. Varkey.
In a letter, he had informed the Collector that Mr. Varkey was aged 75 years and in dire need of money for food and medicine.
By delaying disbursal of the amount, the Collector was ‘repeatedly violating direction’ of the High Court. He warned the Collector that he was delaying disbursal of the amount ‘at his own peril.’
