BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.18534 of 2022 S.Mohamed Shali ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer/ District Collector, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal, Tenkasi District.

2. The Presiding Officer / The District Revenue Officer, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal, Tenkasi.

3. M.Sheik Mydeen

4. M.Beesa Beevi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.xs1/6439/2022 dated 10.05.2022 and quash the same and consequently confirm the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.A2/6301/2021 dated 25.02.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Gangatharan, Government Advocate.

For R-3 & R-4 : No appearance.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and

2.

2. During the last hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 took time to get instructions. However, today there is no appearance on their behalf. I am, therefore, left with no other option but to pass order in their absence.

3.The writ petitioner executed settlement deed dated

08.08.2014 in favour of his wife Beesha Beevi, the fourth respondent herein. Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Maintenance Tribunal for cancelling the document. The Maintenance Tribunal accepted the plea of the petitioner and cancelled the settlement deed vide order dated 25.02.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent herein filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent vide order dated 10.05.2022 reversed the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

4.The writ petitioner herein states that his wife is presently living with their son in Madurai. The petition-mentioned property that was gifted by the petitioner had been let out in favour of a tenant. The tenant is said to be paying a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the fourth respondent. The petitioner states that he will pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards maintenance to the fourth respondent. He further undertakes that the petition-mentioned house will not be alienated or encumbered by him. This undertaking given by the petitioner is placed on record and it will ensure that the property will go to his wife and children after his demise.

5.The appellate authority reversed the decision of the Maintainance Tribunal on the ground that the writ petitioner herein was not entitled to maintain an application under the Act. No reason has been spelt out in the order of the appellate authority. I assume that it must have been in the mind of the appellate authority that since the writ petitioner is a pensioner (i.e., a retired government employee) and is able to maintain himself, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The appellate authority had reversed the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal only on the ground that the writ petitioner is in a position to maintain himself.

6.The question that calls for consideration is whether this approach is legally correct.

7.The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation. In order to provide speedy remedy to the Senior Citizens, the Act contains provisions to ensure their normal life during old-age. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:

“4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.—

(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5 in case of—(i) parent or grandparent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

....”

Section 4 (1) of the Act gives an impression that a parent or a