Disposed

Lakshmi @ Lakshmiyammal v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Aug 2024WP/11159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen challenged maintenance orders passed under the Senior Citizens Act instead of cancellation of a settlement deed in favour of her daughter. The High Court directed the children to comply with the maintenance order, with automatic cancellation of the settlement deed if the sixth respondent defaulted.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 6 to 9 directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (each) per month as ordered; settlement deed in favour of sixth respondent to stand automatically cancelled on her default.

Lakshmi @ Lakshmiyammal Vs the District Collector — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶7

Lakshmi @ Lakshmiyammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen and Administrative Tribunal Office of Welfare Act, Coimbatore 2.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate & The Sub Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 4.The Tahsildar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 5.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 6.S.R.Kalaimani Devi @ S.R.Kalamani 7.Sakthivel 8.Radhakrishnan 9.Premalatha ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶9

1/6

¶10

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

¶11

India p

¶12

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶13

India p raying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records in relation to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.4765/2023/A1 dated 26.06.2023 and confirmed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1263191/2023/U2 dated 08.02.2024, quash the same insofar as dismissal of complaint to cancel the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of 6^th respondent herein.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan For Respondents For R1,2 &4 : Mr.P.Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader For R3 & 5 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R6 : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For R7 : Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam For R8 : Mr.R.K.Gunasekar For R9 : No appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

T his writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

¶17

26.06.2023 passed by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the

¶18

first respondent by order dated dated 08.02.2024, thereby ordered to pay

¶19

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-(each) by respondents 6 to 9 herein.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶23

It is seen that the petitioner's husband died due to Covid 19 on 23.10.2020. The petitioner had settled the subject property in favour of the sixth respondent on 10.02.2000. After demise of her husband, the petitioner was not maintained by the sixth respondent. Right now, she is staying with the eighth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed complaint under Section 23 (1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the second respondent. The second respondent passed order thereby directed the respondents 6 to 9 herein to pay maintenance of sum of Rs.10,000/-(each) to the petitioner instead of cancelling the settlement deed executed in favour of the sixth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as directed by the second respondent, except the eighth respondent, the respondents 6, 7 & 9 are not paying any maintenance to the petitioner.

¶25

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent

¶28

would submit that she is ready to maintain the petitioner by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶29

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent also submitted that the respondents 7 & 9 are willing maintain the petitioner by paying Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶30

In view of the above submission, respondents 6 to 9 are directed to comply with the impugned order passed by the second respondent. However, if the sixth respondent fails to comply with the order passed by the second respondent, the settlement deed executed in favour of the sixth respondent shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶31

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

07.08.2024

¶33

Neutral citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

4/6

¶37

1.The District Collector, Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen and Administrative Tribunal Office of Welfare Act, Coimbatore

¶38

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶39

2.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate & The Sub Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

¶40

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

¶41

4.The Tahsildar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

¶42

5.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

¶43

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

¶45

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

W.P.No.11159 of 2024

07.08.2024

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Lakshmi @ Lakshmiyammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi @ Lakshmiyammal 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

Vidhya Megavannan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Ramesh Vs the Member Secretary

R.Raja, Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Mr.S.Ramachandran Vs the Collector

S. Thavachelvan Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Dr.K.M.Chinnadorai Vs Kamban College of Arts and Science