Sons ordered by a maintenance Tribunal to support their father appealed under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, claiming they were themselves senior citizens. The Division Bench held 'senior citizen' in Section 16 excludes those who are also 'children', following K.Raju, and dismissed the writ appeal confirming the single judge's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025 & C.M.P(MD)No.8629 of 2025
...Appellants
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum the Chairman of Sub Divisional Tribunal, (Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.28553 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024.
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
For Appellants : Ms.G.Prabahari
For Respondents : Ms.Madhu Bala for Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar for R1 Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3
JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)
The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.11.2024 in and by which, the learned single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the children have no right to prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order passed by the Tribunal constituted under Section 15 of the Act.
vehemently contend that the very nomenclature of the Act, namely, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, permits the senior citizens to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act,
and the appellants though children to the first respondent, they by themselves are senior citizens as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Therefore, the finding rendered by the learned single Judge that the
2/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
appellants have no right to prefer an appeal is contrary to the plain reading of the provision. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
3/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
deed in favour of his sons. Since they did not maintain him, he preferred a claim before the Tribunal / third respondent constituted under the Act and the third respondent ultimately granted relief in favour of Kadhar Batcha. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants herein have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal / second respondent by invoking Section 16 of the Act. The second respondent, vide order dated 18.05.2023 set aside the order of the third respondent and ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/each to the first respondent. Challenging which, the first respondent has preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge has held that the appellants herein have no right to prefer the appeal as the Act provided appeal remedy only to the senior citizens and the parents. The said decision was fortified through the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K.Raju vs. 1.Union of India and three others (supra), wherein the Division Bench has categorically held that except senior citizens and parents, no other person has got any right to prefer an appeal and there can be no room for imagination that the other persons aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal.
4/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
5/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
confirmed, as the appellants could not make out any case to deviate from
such well merited finding.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[A.S.M.,J.] & [C.K., J.] 30.10.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes
mbi
To
6/7
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
mbi
W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025
30.10.2025
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether children who are themselves senior citizens under Section 2(h) can appeal under Section 16 against a Tribunal order under the 2007 Act.
Whether 'senior citizen' in Section 16 includes persons also falling within the definition of 'children'.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Raju vs. 1.Union of India and three othersRelied on¶5
W.P.(MD)No.29988 of 2019, dated 19.02.2021
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Sulaiman
Kasim
Kadhar Batcha
The District Collector Cum The Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Pudukkottai
The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum the Chairman of Sub Divisional Tribunal, Illuppur
Anita Sumanth
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
