Dismissed¶41

Ranjith Kumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Jul 2026WP(MD)/12026/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 27.07.2026, M.Dhandapani J. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; senior citizen mother; son's admitted duty to maintain; Revenue Divisional Officer Uthamapalayam order for shelter in settled property; certiorari refused; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)No.8850 of 2025 closed; Theni District.

What did the court decide?

It is the admitted duty of the petitioner, being the son of the third respondent, to maintain her; having failed to take care of his mother, he could be proceeded against on her complaint under the Act. ¶40

Ranjith Kumar Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.8850 of 2025

V.P.Ranjith Kumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Theni District.

¶14

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam,

Theni District.

3.P.Dhamayanthi

4.Vijayakumar

5.Kumar

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the proceedings of the

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶24

second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1729/2024/A2 dated 09.08.2024 and quash the same.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Kumar For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.B.Ravindran For Respondent No.5 : Mr.W.Cleetus

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1729/2024/A2 dated 09.08.2024, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶28

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the son of the third respondent and fourth and fifth respondents are his brothers. The petitioner's father during his life time executed a Will bequeathing some properties in favour of all his legal heirs. Thereafter, the third respondent mother made a complaint before the second respondent on 09.05.2024 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as against the petitioner. The second respondent, after enquiry, passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2024, directing the petitioner to provide shelter to the third respondent in the settled property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶32

¶33

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has given a complaint only at the instigation of the respondents 4 & 5. Though the respondents 4 & 5 were party to the said complaint, however, no direction was issued by the second respondent against the respondents 4 & 5. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this Writ Petition.

¶34

4. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the complaint of the senior citizen alleging failure of maintenance by the petitioner. The order of the second respondent is well within his powers and the second respondent has rightly issued a direction to the petitioner to provide shelter to the third respondent and hence, prays for appropriate orders.

¶35

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of the third respondent and since the petitioner failed to take care of his mother, the third respondent

¶37

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶40

made a complaint before the second respondent under the Act. The second respondent conducted enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2024, directing the petitioner to provide shelter to the third respondent in one portion of the settled property. Admittedly, it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the third respondent and the second respondent has ordered only for providing shelter, which does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶41

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

27.07.2026

¶43

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.12026 of 2025

¶47

¶48