Disposed¶33

Chandravathi v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC20 Feb 2026WP(MD)/36444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

show cause notice; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Central Act 56 of 2007; Article 226; limited judicial review of show cause notices; malafide intention; jurisdiction of Sub Collector; settlement deed cancellation; maintenance claim; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; writ petition disposed with time-bound direction (six weeks) to decide senior citizen maintenance application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the first respondent (Sub Collector) to dispose of the second respondent's application within a period of 6 (six) weeks after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioners and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.29014 of 2025) closed. ¶33

Chandravathi Vs The Sub Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether there is scope for this Court, under Article 226, to interfere with / quash the show cause notice issued by the first respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

There is very limited scope for this Court to interfere under Article 226 with a show cause notice; interference is permissible only if the authority issuing the show cause notice lacks jurisdiction or acted with malafide intention.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the show cause notice was issued based upon the complaint lodged by the second respondent under Central Act 56 of 2007, the first respondent cannot be considered to have issued it with malafide intention; further, the jurisdiction of the first respondent is not in question.

¶32

Key takeaways

In these circumstances (notice issued on a complaint; no malafide; jurisdiction unchallenged), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice.ratio¶32
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the second respondent's application within six weeks after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioners and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.36444 of 2025 (connected W.M.P(MD)No.29014 of 2025), decided 20.02.2026 by R. Vijayakumar, J. Petitioners Chandravathi (wife) and Gokila (daughter) challenged a show cause notice (Na.Ka.Em.R/8083/2025, dated 10.10.2025) issued by the Sub Collector, Kovilpatti under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on the application of K.Rajaram (second respondent/husband), whose property had been settled in favour of his wife in 2012 and by her in favour of the daughter in 2019; the application was said to seek cancellation of the settlement deed, recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- or maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month despite the second respondent drawing a pension of Rs.90,000/- per year. Held: there is very limited scope to interfere under Article 226 with a show cause notice; interference lies only where the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or acts with malafide intention. The notice, issued on the second respondent's complaint under Central Act 56 of 2007, was neither mala fide nor jurisdictionally defective. Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to decide the application within six weeks after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioners, on merits and in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 20.02.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.36444 of 2025 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.29014 of 2025

¶7

Chandravathi

¶8

Gokila

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

The Sub Collector, Sub-Collector Office, Kovilpatti Tuticorin District

¶11

K.Rajaram

¶12

State Represented Through by The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to stay all the further proceedings of the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.Em.R/8083/2025 dated 10.10.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the 1^st petitioner representation sent to the 3^rd

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

respondent and initiate legal action against the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

For Petitioners : M/s.C.M.Arumugam

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R1 M/s.M.Aasha Government Advocate(crl.side) for R3 Mr.S.Ramasamy for R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the showcase notice issued by the first respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, on the basis of the application filed by the second respondent.

¶21

A perusal of the records reveal that the second respondent is said to have settled his property in favour of the first petitioner(wife) in the year 2012, who in turn, has settled the same in favour of the second petitioner(daughter) in the year 2019.

¶22

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the second respondent is a Central Government pensioner, drawing a pension of Rs.90,000/- per year and therefore, the present application seeking for

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

cancellation of settlement deed or for recovering a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- or seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month is clearly with malafide intention and it is abuse of process of law and therefore, he seeks to quash the show cause notice.

¶26

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the entire pension amount received by them is used only to pay the EMI for the housing loan. However, the house property has been taken over by

¶27

the wife and later it was settled in favour of the daughter and he has been driven out of the home.

¶28

It is settled position of law that there is very limited scope for this Court to interfere under Article 226 whenever a challenge is made to show cause notice. Unless it is pointed out that the authority issuing show cause notice, is not having any jurisdiction or malafide intention to the showcase notice, this Court cannot interfere.

¶29

In the present case, based upon the complaint lodged by the second respondent under the Central Act 56 of 2007, the first respondent has issued the show cause notice. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be considered to have

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

issued the show cause notice with malafide intention. That apart, the jurisdiction of the first respondent is also not in question. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the show cause notice.

¶33

In view of the above said facts, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the application of the second respondent within a period of 6(six) weeks after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. No

¶34

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶35

20.02.2026

¶36

2/2

¶37

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶38

4/6

¶39

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