SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Sivanandi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRL OP(MD). No.1768 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 30/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI

CRL OP(MD). No.1768 of 2026

Sivanandi ... Petitioner

Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.,

By, the Superintendent of Police,

O/o. the Superintendent of Police,

Ramanathapuram,

Ramnathapuram District.

2. The District Welfare Officer,

O/o. the District Welfare Officer,

Collectorate Campus,

Ramanathapuram,

Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Collectorate Campus,

Ramanathapuram,

Ramanathapuram District.

4. The Inspector of Police,

Mandapam Police Station,

Ramanathapuram,

Ramanathapuram District.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:31:03 pm )

##PAGE2##

CRL OP(MD). No.1768 of 2026

5. Ramesh

6. Shanmugasundari ... Respondents

PRAYER :-

To direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to provide necessary Police

Protection to the petitioner's life and limb by taking action against the 5th

and 6th respondents, by considering petitioner's representation dated

12.12.2025 in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this

Court.

For Petitioner : M/s. Balamurugapandi.D.,

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 to R4

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the 3rd and 4th

respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner's life

and limb by taking action against the 5th and 6th respondents, by

considering petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2025 in accordance

with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:31:03 pm )

##PAGE3##

CRL OP(MD). No.1768 of 2026

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is a senior citizen of age 88 years who is living alone in Door No.162,

Kanakku Appusamy Street, Mandabam, Ramanathapuram District. The

respondents 5 and 6 are his fourth son and daughter in law. The plight of

the petitioner is that he is residing alone after his wife's demise in the

said address. The house is his exclusive property and he is the owner and

he is in possession and title of the same. The respondents 5 and 6 who

are living away from him had managed to convince the petitioner in

recent times and had come back to the house belonging to the petitioner.

However, in due course of time both the 5th and 6th petitioners are

subjecting the petitioner to serious physical domestic violence by

assaulting him and even subjecting him to physical and mental abuse. In

this regard, several complaints have been given one after another by the

petitioner to the 4th respondent police, for which the 4th respondent

police had turned a deaf ear towards each and every complaint of the

petitioner and hence sought foir indulgence of this Court.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that as

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 5th and 6th

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:31:03 pm )

##PAGE4##

CRL OP(MD). No.1768 of 2026

respondents are not at all residing with the petitioner. But , the 5th

respondent is residing with the 6th respondent in the maternal home of

the six respondent somewhere in Rameshwaram. However, the petitioner

is unnecessarily giving wrong complaints against the 5th and 6th

respondents.

4. Heard either sides and carefully peruse the materials available

on record.

5. From the arguments made by both the parties, it is understood

that already by the order of the competent authority under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, each

and every son of the petitioner has been directed to pay a monthly

maintenance of Rs.1500/- each to the petitioner. In the interregnum, even

if the argument put forth by the learned Government Advocate is taken as

true that the 5th and 6th respondents are not at all living with the

petitioner, it is the bounden duty of the 4th respondent to see to that the

petitioner is living hale healthy an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top