Disposed¶30

K.Natesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/966/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.966 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 18.08.2025 by B.Pugalendhi, J. Keywords: senior citizen; police protection; Section 21 Senior Citizen Act, 2007; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; cancellation of settlement deed / gift deed; Revenue Divisional Officer Trichy proceedings dated 25.03.2025; representation dated 30.04.2025; harassment by son and daughter-in-law; fifth respondent Eegadeepan; direction to respondent police; writ petition closed, no costs. Advocates: R.Yamuna (petitioner); F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader (R1 & R3); E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor (R2 & R4).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with a direction to the respondent police to ensure that there is no harassment to the petitioner by his son and daughter-in-law; no costs.

K.Natesan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed with a direction to the respondent police to ensure that there is no harassment to the petitioner by his son and daughter-in-law; no costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 2 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property under Section 21 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, on the basis of his representation dated 30.04.2025.

¶15

Court's answer

Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if the fifth respondent continues to harass the petitioner, the police would take appropriate action against him, the writ petition is closed with a direction to the respondent police to ensure that there is no harassment to the petitioner by his son and daughter-in-law, with no costs.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Senior citizen father (petitioner) sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing respondents 2 and 4 (Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy) to provide adequate police protection to his life and property under Section 21 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, pursuant to his representation dated 30.04.2025, alleging harassment and life threat from his son (fifth respondent) and daughter-in-law after he cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of his son. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor confirmed that the petitioner's application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, to cancel the Gift deed executed in favour of his son had been allowed by the RDO's proceedings dated 25.03.2025, and submitted that if the fifth respondent continued to harass the petitioner, appropriate action would be taken against him. Recording this submission, the Court (B.Pugalendhi, J.) closed the writ petition with a direction to the respondent police to ensure that there is no harassment to the petitioner by his son and daughter-in-law. No costs.

¶1

W.P. Crl(MD)No.966 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.966 of 2025

K.Natesan

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy.

¶14

5.Egadeepan ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the life and to the petitioners property as per Section 21 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dt. 30.04.2025.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P. Crl(MD)No.966 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Yamuna For R1 & R3 : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader For R2 & R4 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner, an unfortunate father has filed this writ petition that his son is not maintaining him properly.

¶22

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶23

petitioner is a senior citizen. The petitioner's son /the fifth respondent herein is not maintaining him properly and he is also facing harassment by his own son. Therefore, the petitioner has cancelled the settlement deed, which was executed in favour of his son in earlier occasion. Due to cancellation of the settlement deed, the petitioner is facing life threat from his son and daugher-in-law. Therefore, he seeks police protection.

¶24

3.Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader

¶25

takes notice for R1 & R3. Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P. Crl(MD)No.966 of 2025

¶29

Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for R2 & R4 and cofirms that the petitioner has filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, to cancel the Gift deed executed by him in favour of his son and that was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his proceedings, dated 25.03.2025. He further submits that if the fifth respondent continues to harass the petitioner, they would take appropriate action as against him.

¶30

4.Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this writ petition is closed, with a direction to the respondent police to ensure that there is no harassment to the petitioner by his son and daugher-in-law. No costs.

¶31

18.08.2025

¶32

Index:Yes Internet:Yes vrn

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P. Crl(MD)No.966 of 2025

¶36

¶37