The court emphasized the importance of considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition on merits and in accordance with the law before passing final orders on the second respondent's application seeking cancellation of settlement deeds.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1245/2020/A3 and to quash the same.)

1. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the admission stage itself.

2. Mr.S.J. Mohammed Sathik, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the first respondent.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 at the behest of the second respondent.

4. Heard Mr.D. Selvaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.J. Mohammed Sathik, learned Government Advocate for the 1st respondent.

5. The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent in whose favour the second respondent had earlier executed two settlement deeds, one dated 22.03.2001 and the other dated 03.04.2006. There seems to be some matrimonial differences between the petitioner and the second respondent and both of them are staying separately now. According to the second respondent, despite the execution of the settlement deeds, the petitioner has failed to maintain him. In such circumstances, he has initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings on the following grounds:-

a) The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act will not get attracted seeking cancellation of the settlement deeds which were executed much prior to the coming into force of the said Act. According to the petitioner, since the said Act came into force only in the year 2007, the question of cancelling the settlement deeds of the year 2001 and 2006 will not arise.

b) The second respondent is also not a Senior Citizen according to the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, no final orders have been passed till date and the petitioner has only challenged the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Citizens Act, 2007.

8. The grounds raised by the petitioner can very well be considered by the first respondent in the final order to be passed in the application filed by the second respondent against the petitioner. Necessarily the grounds raised in this writ petition will have to be considered by the first respondent. Since the petitioner has filed this writ petition prematurely even before passing of the final order, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the above mentioned grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner as well as the second respondent and only thereafter pass final orders on the second respondent's application seeking for cancellation of the settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioner by him.

9. The petitioner is permitted to produce all documents / records and also to file her written objections. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.