COMMON ORDER

The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2020 is filed for Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to enquire into the petitioner's representation dated 08.10.2020 and to cancel the family arrangement deed dated 14.10.2005 in Document No.3930/2005 registered on the file of the fourth respondent as well as to issue proper direction to the fifth respondent to pay maintenance by invoking the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

2. The fifth respondent has executed the Family Arrangement deed on

14.10.2005. The Senior Citizen Act came into effect only in the year 2008. Admittedly, the document was executed prior to the Act. On perusing the contents of the said family arrangement, the petitioner had settled the property stated thereunder in favour of the 5th respondent and it ought to be termed as settlement deed. Moreover, the deed was executed with a clause that the executant is not having any right to revoke. Also, there is no condition that the 5th respondent ought to take care of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to cancel the settlement deed by invoking the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. If the settlement deed is executed without any clause for revocation, then the said settlement cannot be revoked. In such circumstances, the authorities cannot invoke the section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The said issue is settled by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & another reported in 2022 (5) CTC 257. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“46. The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6889 of 2020 is filed by the daughter of the second respondent to quash the order passed by the first respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The gift deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the writ petitioner was unilaterally cancelled by the second respondent father. The settlement deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent, dated 06.03.2015 is irrevocable and it is a deed of settlement out of love and affection. The second respondent has specifically stated that he has no right to revoke the settlement deed. From the recitals, the settlement does not attract Section 126 of Tamil Nadu Property Act. It is seen that the settlor viz., the second respondent, has not put any condition. In other words, the gift deed is not subject to any condition or terms that the transferor shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the second respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for invoking the power provided to the second respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed….”

Following the Hon'ble Full Bench Judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer in W.P.(MD)No.15320 of 2020 to cancel the settlement deed dated 14.10.2005 cannot be granted and the writ petition is dismissed.

3. The petitioner has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7189 of

2023 for Mandamus, directing the third and fifth respondent to conduct investigation on the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2023 and take suitable action under the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

4. Even though the settlement deed cannot be cancelled, the petitioner is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Since the petitioner is having two sons, the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs. 5000/- from each son. Therefore, the respondent son Sudha Ganesh is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the petitioner Ruth Florance.

5. Further the writ petitioner is seeking bus pass. The respondent son is an employee in TNSTC and the family is entitled to bus