Disposed

B.Vijayaa v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jan 2024WP/15109/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged District Collector order directing her to maintain her senior citizen husband under the Senior Citizens Act after he settled properties on her. Court held a senior citizen may claim maintenance from a relative who inherited or holds his property. Orders confirmed with modification: husband allotted one apartment; wife undertook to pay Rs.15,000 monthly maintenance.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.Vijayaa Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:6046

¶2

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 19.01.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

W.P.No.15109 of 2020 and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.18845 and 18846 of 2020

B.Vijayaa

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode District.

¶14

Balamurugesan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.875/2020/C4 dated 20.08.2020 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 9

¶19

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶20

For R3 : Mr.S.Bharanidharan for Mr.B.Mohan

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The order of the District Collector, Erode dated 20.08.2020 is sought

¶23

to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

¶24

Curiously, the issue has been raised as to whether the husband is

¶25

entitled to claim maintenance against his wife under the Senior Citizens Act. With reference to the claim set out by the 3^rd respondent seeking maintenance from his own wife was considered initially by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode and the appeal was decided by the District Collector.

¶26

Section 2(h) of the Senior Citizens Act defines that “ senior citizen

¶27

means any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above ”.

¶28

Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act defines that “ maintenance

¶29

includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance

¶30

Page 2 of 9

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶33

and treatment ”.

¶34

Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act deals with the maintenance of parents and Senior Citizens. Section 4 is not restricted only to the parents but extended to the Senior Citizens also. It is not in dispute that the 3^rd respondent is a Senior Citizen, who crossed the age of 60 years. Section 4(4) of the Senior Citizens Act enumerates that “ any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen ”. Therefore, under Section 4(4) of the Senior Citizens Act states that any person can claim maintenance under the Act against more than one relatives entitled to inherit the property of the Senior Citizen.

¶35

In the present case, the 3^rd respondent states that he purchased immovable properties from and out of his own income and inherited from his forefather. The 3^rd respondent, who claimed maintenance under the Act states that he had executed settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶36

Page 3 of 9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶39

After the execution of settlement deeds in favour of the writ petitioner, she had had neglected the 3^rd respondent. The allegation against the writ

¶40

petitioner was that she is not providing any food, shelter and other amenities

¶41

to the 3^rd respondent to live. Since the properties belonged to the

¶42

3^rd respondent was settled to his own wife / writ petitioner and the 3^rd respondent has no means to live, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Senior Citizens Act for grant of maintenance. The Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings dated 25.02.2020 adjudicated the issues between the 3^rd respondent and the writ petitioner and based on the deposition and the documents, passed the order stating that the 3^rd respondent was neglected by the writ petitioner and she has failed to maintain him after securing all his properties through settlement deeds. Accordingly, three apartments, one for the residence of the 3^rd respondent and two apartments for rental income was made to protect the livelihood of the 3^rd respondent. The authorities found that eight apartments are available, out of which the writ petitioner is residing in one apartment and considering those facts, the 3^rd respondent was allotted one apartment for his residence and 2 apartments for the purpose of the collection of rental.

¶43

Page 4 of 9

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶46

Pertinently, the settlement deeds executed in favour of the writ

¶47

petitioner by the 3^rd respondent were not cancelled by the authorities. The authorities have exercised their powers in order to protect the livelihood of the 3^rd respondent. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was rejected and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was confirmed.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3^rd respondent is leading a wayward life and spending huge amount, thereby causing financial difficulties to the family. The petitioner has no objection for providing food, shelter, cloths etc., to the 3^rd respondent and they have no objection to accommodate them in their house itself. However, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, on instructions, made a submission that it is not possible since there is an apprehension of harassment by the writ petitioner and the family members and therefore, the petitioner may be allotted a separate accommodation, as ordered by the respondents 1 and 2.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Prakasam would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/per month to the 3^rd respondent towards rental income for 2 apartments and

¶50

Page 5 of 9

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶53

such monthly maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- will be paid through account transfer in favour of the 3^rd respondent on or before 10^th day of every calendar month. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that necessary arrangements will be made for transfer of funds through electronic mode from bank accounts of the petitioner to the account of the 3^rd respondent. As far as the residential right is concerned, the house allotted by the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., House No.“C” in the Second Floor of the apartment is to be granted to the 3^rd respondent for his own accommodation. Therefore, the order of the respondents 1 and 2 are confirmed with reference to the allotment of residential premises for the personal occupation of the 3^rd respondent in House No. “C” Second Floor at No. 4/129, Patel Street, Erode -1.

¶54

With reference to the allotment of two houses at A and B, the writ petitioner has given an undertaking that she will pay a sum of Rs.15,000/towards maintenance amount to the 3^rd respondent. In view of the said undertaking, the order impugned stands modified to the extent of accommodation to the 3^rd respondent, which is directed to be provided at House No. “C” Second Floor at No.4/129, Patel Street, Erode -1 and

¶55

Page 6 of 9

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶58

regarding maintenance, the writ petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the 3^rd respondent through bank account transfer.

¶59

In the event of any violation by the writ petitioner in payment of monthly maintenance amount, the 3^rd respondent is at liberty to approach the District Collector for execution of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector.

¶60

With this modification, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶61

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶62

19.01.2024

¶63

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶64

¶65

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶66

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Erode District.

¶67

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

¶68

Page 7 of 9

¶69

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶70

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶71

skr

¶72

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

¶73

Page 8 of 9

¶74

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

W.P.No.15109 of 2020

19.01.2024

Page 9 of 9

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

B.Vijayaa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.Vijayaa v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Rafiq, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Federation of Csita Beneficiaries and Stakeholders Associates Vs Union of India

Pandian Primary School Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Lieutenant Colonel Ganesan S (Retd) Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M.Chitumari, Vs The Assistant General Manager

Sri Rengaswamy Educational Vs union of India, Ministry of