Dismissed¶¶48

P.Pitchai Palandar v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Jul 2026WP(MD)/17015/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007; Section 4; Section 5; eligibility of senior citizen receiving family pension to claim maintenance; daughter-in-law liability; settlement deed Document No.717 of 2022; Revenue Divisional Officer Illuppur order dated 09.08.2023; District Collector Pudukkottai appellate order dated 19.04.2025; certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; writ petition dismissed; no costs; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; M. Dhandapani J.

What did the court decide?

The Court upheld the reading that Section 4 of the Act entitles only a senior citizen including a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him to make an application under Section 5 of the Act. ¶¶47

P.Pitchai Palandar Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the first petitioner, who receives a family pension and is capable of maintaining himself and his wife, satisfies the eligibility requirement of Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to make an application under Section 5 against his daughter-in-law. +1 more

¶¶47

Court's answer

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

Since the first petitioner is capable of maintaining himself and his wife, the impugned orders of the first and second respondents did not warrant interference and the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani J.), 28.07.2026 — Writ Petitions under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash (i) the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer's order dated 09.08.2023 dismissing the first petitioner's maintenance claim under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and (ii) the first respondent District Collector's appellate order dated 19.04.2025 confirming the dismissal. The petitioners alleged that their daughter-in-law (third respondent) had fraudulently procured the first petitioner's signature on a settlement deed (Document No.717 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022) in favour of her husband, and sought Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance from her. Held: under Section 4 of the Act, only a senior citizen including a parent unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him may apply under Section 5; as the first petitioner receives a pension and is admittedly capable of maintaining himself and his wife, the concurrent findings did not warrant interference. Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.P.(MD)Nos.12919, 12920 & 12922 of 2025

1.P.Pitchai Palandar

2.Maruthambal

... Petitioners

-vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶14

Pudukkottai District,

¶15

Pudukkottai.

¶16

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶17

Illuppur Division, Pudukkottai District.

¶18

3.P.Susila ... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Pa.Mu.3212/2023/A4 dated 09.08.2023 and the first

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶23

respondent in Na.Ka.C6/2335885/2024 dated 19.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the petitioner as maintenance.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundaram,

¶25

Senior Counsel for M/s.KBS Law Office

¶26

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

¶27

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.3 : Mr.A.Banumathi

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Challenging the impugned proceedings of the first and second respondents in Na.Ka.C6/2335885/2024 dated 19.04.2025 and Pa.Mu. 3212/2023/A4 dated 09.08.2023, respectively, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶30

2. The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent is the petitioners' daughter-in-law and the petitioners' son is one Paulraj. The third respondent fraudulently obtained the signature of the first petitioner and is said to executed a settlement deed in favour of the third respondent's husband vide Document No.717 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022.

¶31

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶34

After the demise of the petitioners' son Paulraj, since the third respondent failed to take care of the petitioners, the first petitioner initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the second respondent. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent conducted enquiry and in and by proceedings dated 09.08.2023, dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent by impugned proceedings dated 19.04.2025, confirmed the order of the second respondent. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that admittedly, the settlement said to have been executed by the petitioners does not contain any condition. Even in the absence of any condition, the respondent authorities while dismissing the petitioners' petition could have ordered monthly maintenance as against the third respondent and also provided shelter. However, the same was not ordered by the respondents. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶36

4. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that the respondents 1 & 2 arrived at a

¶37

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶40

conclusion that the first petitioner is receiving family pension and they are capable of maintaining themselves. Hence, the impugned orders came to be passed, which does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶41

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the first petitioner is receiving monthly pension and suppressing the same, he made a complaint before the second respondent under the Act, however, the second respondent upon enquiry, rightly rejected the claim of the first petitioner. Thereafter, in the appeal preferred by the first petitioner, the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2025, confirmed the same. Further, Section 4 of the Act contemplates that only a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 of the Act. Whereas, the first petitioner is receiving family pension. Accordingly, prays for appropriate orders.

¶42

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

7. Admittedly, the third respondent is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners and the first petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶47

of his son, while he was alive. It is submitted that the first petitioner is receiving pension and he is capable of maintaining himself and his wife. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the third respondent, Section 4 of the Act contemplates that only a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 of the Act. Admittedly, the first petitioner is capable of maintaining himself and his wife and hence, the impugned orders of the first and second respondents do not warrant interference. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶48

8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

28.07.2026

¶50

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

¶51

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.17015 of 2025

¶54

¶55