Allowed

M.Veeramani, v. the Sub Divisional

Madras HC21 Nov 2024WP(MD)/3696/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen's maintenance order directed part rent from shops be paid by persons the authority itself found not liable under the 2007 Act. The High Court held the authority cannot impose maintenance on non-statutory obligors on humanitarian grounds and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.01.2017 in Na.Ka.No.115/2016/A-3 set aside; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

M.Veeramani, Vs the Sub Divisional — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2968 and 6687 of 2017

M.Veeramani

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate cum

¶11

Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶12

Pattukottai Taluk,

¶13

Thanjavur District.

¶14

2.Balasubramanian

¶15

3.Murugesan

¶16

4.K.Rajendran

¶17

5.K.Nirmala

¶18

6.K.Saroja

¶19

7.M.Mallika

¶20

8.M.Raja

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

9.M.Ananthi

10.M.Nishanthi

11.M.Manimahalai

12.M.Kamachi

13.M.Vasuki

14.Ganeshan

15.Sathiyamoorthy

16.Rajendran (R3 to R16 have been impleaded vide order dated 23.10.2017)

¶32

... Respondents

¶33

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.115/2016/A-3 dated 30.01.2017 on the file of the first respondent quash the same.

¶34

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan For R1 : Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For R4 to R6 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For R7, R8 & R12 to R16 : No appearance

¶35

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

¶36

2/6

¶37

ORDER

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶39

The challenge in the writ petition is the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.115/2016/A-3 dated 30.01.2017.

¶40

The order impugned had been passed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizenship Act, 2007.

¶41

A reading of the impugned order would indicate that the first respondent himself had noted that there is no power to order payment of maintenance as against the petitioner and the sons of the brother of the second respondent. In spite of having given such finding, the first respondent had proceeded to sympathetically consider the case of the second respondent and had directed the payment of part rent received from 4 shops. The same was also the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. Thereafter, the said suit had been transferred to the III Additional District Court, Pattukottai and by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2019, the second respondent has been benefited with the partition decree. However, an appeal suit is also pending against the same.

¶42

3/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶45

In the present circumstances of the case, since the first respondent himself has categorically held that he had no authority to pass such an order, he had proceeded to pass the said order only on humanity ground. When a statute provides who would be liable to pay the maintenance of the parents/senior citizens, the authority cannot order payment of such maintenance by any other person other than the persons, who have been listed to be liable to pay the same. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the provisions of the said Act.

¶46

For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶47

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶48

21.11.2024

¶49

4/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶52

¶53

The Sub Divisional Administrative Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶57

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.3696 of 2017

¶60

21.11.2024

¶61

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

¶62

6/6

M.Veeramani, v. the Sub Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Veeramani, v. the Sub Divisional

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. Ravichandran, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Muthu Cotton Mills Vs the Tamilnadu Generation and

K. Chokkar Vs the Superintendent Engineer

The President Vs The Commissioner

D. Thanga Raj Pandian Vs the District Registrar

Senguttuvan Vs the Secretary to Govt.