Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Mala, J
M.Venkatesan, S/o Late Manika Gounder – Appellant
Versus
The Collector, O/o The Collectorate, Vellore District – Respondent
WP.No.15085 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.K.Seetharam
For the Respondents:Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate
Court directed a speedy resolution of appeals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act to prevent hardships for vulnerable individuals misled by family members.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 16(1) - Writ of Mandamus sought for speedy disposal of appeal - Petitioners, physically handicapped and unmarried, alleged deceived into property transfer under false assurances - Despite initial hearings, no progress in appeal for over six months - Court directed timely conclusion of appeal on merits. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) The court underscored the obligation of authorities to proceed with appeals promptly, aiming to alleviate the hardships faced by petitioners who were misled and abandoned by family members. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners inherited agricultural land, living independently until they were allegedly deceived into transferring property, leading to neglect and an initial maintenance order.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted the delay in the appeal process and mandated that the second respondent conclude the enquiry promptly.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of deceit in property transfer and the failure of authorities to resolve the petitioners' appeal timely.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for administrative bodies to act promptly to prevent undue hardship on vulnerable individuals.
Result: The writ petition stands disposed of with directions to conclude the enquiry within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim hardship due to deceitful property transfer. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court notes lack of progress on appeal and stresses timely resolution. (Para 4) |
| 3. court directs completion of enquiry within two months. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to conduct the enquiry in the Petitioner's Appeal in Na.Ka.No.1371/Voo/2024 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.
2. The petitioners' are brother and sister, both physically handicapped and unmarried. They inherited agricultural land from their father through a partition deed registered in 1986. They were living independently and sustained themselves from the income from the ancestral property. In 2018, their other sisters (respondents 4 to 6) allegedly induced them to execute a settlement deed, promising lifelong care and a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. However, after obtaining the property, the respondents abandoned the petitioners. Consequently, a complaint was filed by them before the third respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . By an order dated 06.08.2024, the private respondents were directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per petitioner as maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the second respondent on 04.09.2024, but despite the issuance of notice and an initial hearing on 14.10.2024, there was no further progress for over six months.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners' contends that the petitioners' were deceived by the respondents into transferring their property under false assurances and were subsequently neglected, causing them severe hardship. He contends that the authorities have failed to act on their appeal under Section 16 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , despite repeated reminders. The counsel therefore prayed that appropriate orders may be passed for speedy disposal of the petitioners' appeal pending with the second respondent.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 to R3 submits that already an enquiry was initiated by the second respondent and hence requested two more months to complete the enquiry and pass orders in the appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. As the second respondent has already initiated the enquiry proceedings, in the petitioners' appeal without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry in the Petitioner's Appeal in Na.Ka.No.1371/Voo/2024, on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs.
