Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2068
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J
Anbalagan
Versus
The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer & Others
W.P.No.12145 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 26-04-2012
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
Headnote
MAWOPASC Act - Interpretation of Provisions - Section 2(b), 2(f), 4, 5, 7, 9, 16 - The court discussed the interpretation of key provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, including the definition of 'maintenance' and 'property', the obligation of children to maintain senior citizens, the constitution of Maintenance Tribunal, and the restoration of properties to senior citizens. The court emphasized the broad definition of 'maintenance' to include residence and the authority of the Tribunal to order restoration of properties to senior citizens.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, son of the third respondent, challenged an order directing him to vacate properties enjoyed by the third respondent. The third respondent claimed maintenance and restoration of properties under the MAWOPASC Act, alleging ill-treatment by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the third respondent was entitled to restoration of properties and maintenance, as the petitioner had interfered with the third respondent's enjoyment of the properties and failed to establish sole ownership.
Issues: Interpretation of MAWOPASC Act provisions, jurisdiction of the authority, suppression of information by the petitioner, and ill-treatment of senior citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The broad definition of 'maintenance' under the Act, the authority of the Tribunal to order restoration of properties, and the obligation of children to maintain senior citizens were key legal principles influencing the court's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order for restoration of properties to the third respondent.
For the Petitioner:V. Nicholas, Advocate.
1. This writ petition raises the question of true interpretation of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short MAWOPASC Act) and the rules framed thereunder. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, dated 23.5.2011. Perhaps this is the first case received by his office under this Act which is in force for three years. The petitioner is none other than the son of the third respondent herein.
2. By the impugned order, the first respondent held that the petitioner cannot claim any right over the properties enjoyed by the third respondent father including the land in S.No.110 to an extent of 2.24 acres, S.No.111 to an extent of 1.76 acres and in S.No.226/A to an extent of 2.66 acres (altogether 6.66 acres), as well as two tiled houses situated in Nagampatti village which are in possession and enjoyment of the third respondent. The petitioner was also directed to vacate the house forthwith with further direction not to enter into the land in possession and enjoyment of the third respondent father. It was also declared that the third respondent is entitled to enjoy the property and maintain the same till his life time.
3. The case of the petitioner was that his father, i.e., the third respondent has two wives. The petitioner was the son of the first wife Sellammal. Besides him, there are also three other daughters through first wife, i.e., Dhanalakshmi, Kanmani and Poongothai. At present, all were married and settled elsewhere along with their husbands. During the life time of his mother, the third respondent had married one Alankarammal and has son by name Chakravarthy and one daughter by name Vijayalakshmi. The third respondent father is now living with the petitioner's aunt, i.e., the second wife and her son Chakravarthy.
4. It is claimed that the third respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner, his mother and sisters for a declaration and permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of 'A' schedule properties in O.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Pochampalli. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Krishnagiri and was renumbered as O.S.No.172 of 2010. In the plaint, the third respondent claimed that there was partition of properties on 2.5.2002 in the family. The 'B' schedule properties were purchased by the petitioner's grand father Munusamy Gounder. They were divided into two shares, of which one share was allotted to the petitioner and the other share was allotted to the second wife's son Chakravarthy. The third respondent claimed that he alone is enjoying the 'A' schedule properties. The suit was contested by the petitioner by contending that the marriage with one Alankarammal was void and no share is available to her son Chakravarthy. The 'A' schedule properties themselves were purchased from and out of the funds derived from the 'B' schedule properties. The petitioner's sisters also filed a suit against the petitioner and his father in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, which was subsequently transferred to the Principal Sub Judge, Krishnagiri and was renumbered as O.S.No.158 of 2010. It is claimed that both suits are pending.
5. It is also the claim of the petitioner that in Nagampatti village, there are two houses. In one house, he is living with his family and mother Sellammal who is now 68 years. In the other house, his father is living with his second wife and her son Chakravarthy. The third respondent got rental income from the shops and a portion of the house. It was at this stage, without any rhyme or reason, the third respondent has filed an application under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the MAWOPASC Act claiming relief under the Act including an action against the petitioner and to retrieve the properties. In the complaint, he had claimed that
