Dismissed

Nadhagopal v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Apr 2023WP/12317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a Tribunal order mandating petitioners to pay Rs.5,000 monthly to their senior citizen parents. The Court held the quantum was not exorbitant given living costs and medical needs, and petitioners remained duty-bound to maintain.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Nadhagopal Vs The District Collector — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 24.04.2023

¶4

C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.12317 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.12152 & 12153 of 2023

¶6

1.Nadhagopal 2.Mohankumar 3.Kanagavalli ... Petitioners Vs

¶7

1. The District Collector, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 2. The District Revenue Officer/Presiding Officer, The Parents and Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 3. N.Govindasamy ... Respondents

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

Page No:1/6

¶10

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other order, writ or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, dated 24.02.2023 in Proceedings No.Pa.Mu.3767/2022/A1 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner ... M/s.A.Sathasivam

¶13

For Respondents ... Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2023 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent is the father of

¶17

the petitioners and the 4^th respondent. The 3^rd respondent had a self acquired property to an extent of about 4 ½ cent which was sold to and in favour of one Duraisamy for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1.3 crores. The said amount was equally divided among the petitioners and the respondents 3 & 4 along with the wife of the 3^rd respondent. However, the share of the 3^rd respondent was deposited in the bank, pursuant to which, the 3^rd respondent and his wife are

¶18

Page No:2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

¶21

receiving monthly interest to the tune of Rs.22,000/-. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent and his wife were under the care and custody of the 4^th respondent. While so, 4^th respondent gave a complaint before the 2^nd respondent, based on which, summons were issued to the petitioners, pursuant to which, the petitioners appeared before the 2^nd respondent and gave their explanation, as a result of which, the impugned proceedings dated 24.02.2023 came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent directing the petitioners to pay 5,000/- each to the 3^rd respondent and his wife on or before the 10^th of every month. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is also to be taken into consideration that the petitioners 1 & 2 are senior citizens and the 3^rd petitioner is the house wife and they are not in a position to even maintain themselves. However, the 3^rd respondent and his wife are receiving monthly interest for a sum of Rs.22,000/- which is sufficient for them to maintain themselves. Without taking all the aforesaid into consideration, the 2^nd respondents has passed the impugned proceedings. Hence the same needs interference.

¶23

Page No:3/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

¶26

On the above contention, this Court heard the learned Special

¶27

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Though, it is the claim of the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent and his wife are receiving monthly interest from the bank based on the deposit of the share through their property, however, it is to be pointed out that they are still the parents of the petitioners and the petitioners are duty bound to maintain them. The petitioners cannot shirk their responsibility to maintain their parents, irrespective of wherever they reside. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance fixed by the 2^nd respondent, it is evident from the records that the maintenance was ordered at Rs.5000/- to be paid by each petitioner. The cost of living is to be the index for the purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance. While so, taking into consideration the cost of living in the present scenario, the maintenance ordered by the 2^nd respondent cannot be said be exorbitant.

¶29

Further, it is to be pointed out that the 3^rd respondent and his wife are the senior citizens and with increase in age, the ailments that they would be suffering cannot also be lost sight of, for which they would be requiring to shell

¶30

Page No:4/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

¶33

out towards medical expenses and medicines. In such a backdrop, the awarded amount, in no way could be termed to be exorbitant or unreasonable and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award of maintenance as ordered by the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition is devoid on merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶35

24.04.2023

¶36

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes NHS

¶37

Page No:5/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

M.DHANDAPANI, J

NHS

The District Collector, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶44

The District Revenue Officer/Presiding Officer, The Parents and Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

W.P.No.12317 of 2023

24.04.2023

Page No:6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nadhagopal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadhagopal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vyjayanthi Vs Dr.Alby John Varghese IAS and 3 others

K.Malaiyappan Vs The Chairman

M/s.South India Oil Corporation Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

R.Swetha Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Dhanusu Vs The Dean

Rani Vs Hockey Unit of TamilNadu