R Ramabai v. R Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR WA No.1084 of 2025 and CMP No.8632 of 2025

1. R Ramabai No 10/27 (1 st floor) Ramapuram Agraharam kuthalam Town and Taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. R Ramesh S/o.Rajappa, No.10/27, (1 st floor) Ramapuram Agraharam, Kuthalam Town and Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 3.The District Collector Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 1/15

4.The Inspector Of Police Kuthalam Police Station Kuththalam Taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order in W.P. No. 7129 of 2022 dated 06.09.2024 and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court CMP No. 8632 of 2025 PRAYER To grant an ad interim stay of the Judgment in W.P. No. 7129 of 2022 dated 06.09.2024 for the above stated reasons.

For Appellant(s):

Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel For Mr.Jerry V V Sundar For Respondent(s):

Ms.M.Meenatchi For R1 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader For RR2 & 3 Mr.M.Babumuthumeran, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ order dated 06.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.7129 of 2022 is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings. 2/15

2. The appellant before this Court is the senior citizen and the fourth respondent in the writ proceedings.

3. The appellant/senior citizen filed a complaint before the Senior Citizen Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act stating that after the death of her husband, she was residing in her matrimonial house which stands in her name. Admittedly, the appellant/senior citizen is the absolute owner of the house property. The complaint filed by the appellant before the Tribunal reveals that the first respondent is the second son of the appellant and residing in a portion of the said house. He started abusing the senior citizen and ill-treated and coerced the senior citizen for executing a settlement deed in his favour. Unfortunately, the appellant/senior citizen was driven out from the house by the first respondent despite the fact that the appellant is the owner of the property. The appellant/ senior citizen had other two children who are residing separately. Since, the first respondent harassed the appellant/senior citizen both physically and mentally, she was forced to file a complaint before the Tribunal. 3/15

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and passed an order of eviction of the first respondent from the property and execution was also ordered. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the District Collector. Pertinently, the said appeal is not maintainable under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act. However, the Collector also considered the issues on merits and confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent. The writ Court, passed an order directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance in favour of the appellant/senior citizen and permitted the appellant/senior citizen to stay along with the first respondent in the same property.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal came to be instituted.

6. Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the relationship is strained. Under these 4/15

circumstances, there is no possibility of living in the same premises. That apart, the appellant is the absolute owner of the property and it is her matrimonial home. Therefore, she is entitled to reside in her property uninterruptedly and therefore the writ order is to be reversed.

7. Mrs.M.Meenatchi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would oppose by stating that the first respondent is residing in one portion of the house and that the appellant cannot have any objection to permit the 1 st respondent to reside in the said portion. Further he states that he will maintain his mother by providing all amenities.

8. Mere statement in this regard would be insufficient to meet out the objectives of the Senior Citizen Act. The Act contemplates not only the payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Act ensures peaceful living with dignity and with all amenities. Therefore, the scope of Senior Citizens Act is not to pay monthly maintenance to the senior citizen. The dignity of the senior citizen is to be restored in all respects and the District Collector is bound to protect the life, 5/15

property and dignity of the senior citizens in all respects. The senior citizen is entitled to reside in her own property which is her matrimonial home.

9. In the present case, there is no settlement deed was executed. Therefore, she is entitled to reside in her house uninterruptedly and the first respondent has no legal rights to reside in the said property. The legal principles and the scope and objective of Senior Citizen Act have been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of S.Rajan vs. R. Srinivasan and others in W.A.No.3178 of 2024 dated 01.04.2025.

10. In view of the fact that the senior citizen has been harassed and not allowed to occupy her own house, which is her matrimonial home, the relief granted by the writ Court is not only insufficient but not in commensurate with the scope and objectives of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to reverse the order. Consequently, the writ order impugned dated 06.09.2024 in W.P.No.7129 of 2022 is set aside. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Senior Citizen Tribunal stands confirmed. The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai is directed to 6/15

restore the possession of the house property and handover the same to the appellant/senior citizen within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ appeal stands allowed. (S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (K.RAJASEKAR J.) 24-04-2025 ssi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.R Ramesh S/o.Rajappa, No.10/27, (1st floor) Ramapuram Agraharam, Kuthalam Town and Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 3.The District Collector Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 4.The Inspector Of Police Kuthalam Police Station Kuththalam taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

7/15

8/15

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR J.

ssi WA No.1084 of 2025 and CMP No.8632 of 2025 24-04-2025 9/15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR WA No.1084 of 2025 and CMP No.8632 of 2025 R Ramabai Appellant(s) Vs 1.R Ramesh 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal Mayiladuthurai.

3.The District Collector Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal Mayiladuthurai.

4.The Inspector Of Police Kuthalam Police Station Kuththalam Taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order in W.P. No. 7129 of 2022 dated 06.09.2024 and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court 10/15

For Appellant(s):

Ms.T.Sarayna For Respondent(s):

Ms.M.Meenatchi For R1 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader For R2 & R3 Mr.M.Babumuthumeran, Additional Public Prosecutor For R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Today, the matter was listed under the caption "For Being Mentioned" on the ground that there are inadvertent mistakes that had crept in Paragraph Nos.3 and 8 of the order. Therefore, Paragraph Nos.3 and 8 of the order dated 24.04.2025 shall be replaced as follows:

"3. The appellant/senior citizen filed a complaint before the Senior Citizen Tribunal/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act stating that after the death of her husband, she was residing in her 11/15

matrimonial house which stands in her name. Admittedly, the appellant/senior citizen is the absolute owner of the house property. The complaint filed by the appellant before the Tribunal reveals that the first respondent is the first son of the appellant and residing in a portion of the said house. He started abusing the senior citizen and ill-treated and coerced the senior citizen for executing a settlement deed in his favour. Unfortunately, the appellant/senior citizen was driven out from the house by the first respondent despite the fact that the appellant is the owner of the property. The appellant/ senior citizen had other two children who are residing separately. Since, the first respondent harassed the appellant/senior citizen both physically and mentally, she was forced to file a complaint before the Tribunal.

8. Mere statement in this regard would be insufficient to meet out the objectives of the Senior Citizen Act. The Act contemplates not only the payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Act ensures peaceful living with dignity and with all amenities. Therefore, the scope of Senior Citizens Act 12/15

is not only to pay monthly maintenance to the senior citizen. The dignity of the senior citizen is to be restored in all respects and the District Collector is bound to protect the life, property and dignity of the senior citizens in all respects. The senior citizen is entitled to reside in her own property which is her matrimonial home."

2. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order and issue fresh order copy.

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (K.RAJASEKAR J.) 10/09/25 Jeni 13/15

To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 2.The District Collector Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal Mayiladuthurai 3.The Inspector Of Police Kuthalam Police Station Kuththalam taluk Mayiladuthurai District.

14/15

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR J.

Jeni WA No.1084 of 2025 and CMP No.8632 of 2025 10/09/25 15/15