Disposed¶38

L.Pankajam v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jan 2026WP/4391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court single-judge order (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, 22-01-2026) disposing of W.P.No.4391 of 2025: mandamus under Article 226 to compel officials to act on a 02.07.2024 representation under Section 24, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, refused — Section 24 covers only wholly abandoning a senior citizen in one's care, not a visiting-rights dispute; no statutory jurisdiction for District Collector, RDO, SP or Inspector of Police; petitioner directed to the appropriate Civil Court; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court with respect to her grievance; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶38

L.Pankajam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court with respect to her grievance; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus lies directing respondents 1 to 4 (District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police) to take suitable legal action against respondents 5 to 8 under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on the petitioner's representation dated 02.07.2024. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police have no jurisdiction in matters of this nature unless expressly authorised by a statute.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 punishes a person having the care or protection of a senior citizen who leaves such senior citizen in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning the senior citizen, with imprisonment up to three months or fine up to five thousand rupees or both.

¶33

Key takeaways

Section 24 will not cover the instant fact situation where the petitioner seeks visiting rights to her mother; the provision addresses abandonment of a senior citizen, not denial of access to a family member.ratio¶34
It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for her grievance against the 5th respondent, including claiming visiting rights of her mother.ratio¶34
The Maintenance of Senior Citizens Act provides remedies for a senior citizen to claim maintenance, protection, dignity in life or cancellation of gifts, but contains no provision for the relief prayed for in this writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 sought directing the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, Erode, to take action against the petitioner's brother (5th respondent) and his family under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on her representation dated 02.07.2024, the 5th respondent having custody of the petitioner's mother and denying her visitation. Held: Section 24 penalises only a person having care or protection of a senior citizen who wholly abandons the senior citizen (imprisonment up to three months / fine up to five thousand rupees / both) and does not cover a claim for visiting rights; the said officials have no jurisdiction in such matters unless expressly authorised by statute; the Act affords remedies only for maintenance, protection, dignity in life or cancellation of gifts, not the relief prayed for. Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court, including for claiming visiting rights; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.4391 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.4391 of 2025

¶7

L.Pankajam W/o. (late) M.Loganathan, No.05, N.G.G.O Nagar, Moolappalayam, Erode.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode Division, Erode District.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Arachalur Police Station, Erode District.

¶14

5.R.Somasundaram S/o.K.N. Ramsamy Gounder, Kothukkarar Veedu, Palakkattu Thottam, Kaaroothuppalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk and District,

¶15

6.Nirmala

¶16

W/o.Somasundaram, Kothukkarar Veedu, Palakkattu Thottam, Kaaroothuppalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk and District.

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.4391 of 2025

¶19

7.Praveen,

¶20

S/o.Somasundaram, Kothukkarar Veedu, Palakkattu Thottam, Kaaroothuppalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk and District,

¶21

8.Naveen, S/o.Somasundaram, Kothukkarar Veedu, Palakkattu Thottam, Kaaroothuppalayam, Avalpoondurai Village, Erode Taluk And District,

¶22

Respondents

¶23

PRAYER

¶24

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take suitable legal action as against the respondents 5 to 8 herein under Section 24 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.07.2024 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble court.

¶25

For Petitioner	Ms.P.Neelavathy
For Respondents	Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, GA for R1 and R2
	Mr.J.Subbiah, GA(Crl.Side)
	R3 and R4

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to take suitable legal action

¶28

against the respondents 1 to 4 herein, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2024 under Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.4391 of 2025

¶31

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 5^th respondent is the brother

¶32

of the petitioner. He is having the custody of the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner was not even permitted to visit the mother. Therefore, the petitioner has made the above representation dated 02.07.2024.

¶33

A reading of Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it would be clear that whoever, having the care or protection of senior citizen leaves, such senior citizen in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such senior citizen, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.

¶34

Section 24 will not cover the instant fact situation, where the petitioner wants to have visiting right. It will be very much open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for her grievance against the 5^th respondent including claiming visiting rights of her mother. There is no jurisdiction for the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police or Inspector of Police in involving matter of such nature, unless expressly authorised by any statute. Maintenance of Senior Citizens Act provides certain remedies for the senior citizen to claim for maintenance, protection, dignity in life or for cancellation of any gift, that is made. The Act does not contain provision for the relief, that is prayed for before this Court. Therefore, keeping

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.4391 of 2025

¶37

open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court with

¶38

respect to her grievance, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶39

22-01-2026

¶40

Neutral Citation:No ari