Radha v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Radha ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

5. The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

6. Elumalai

7. Rajakumari

8. Andal ... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, to direct the second and fifth respondents to give police protection to the petitioner till the disposal of the third and fourth respondent enquiry under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, aged about 70 years, seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 5 for providing police protection till the disposal of the petitioner's representation under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by respondents 3 and 4.

2.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that after the execution of settlement deeds in favour of her daughters/R7 & R8, they have not taken care of her. Consequently, the petitioner sent a representation seeking to cancel those settlement deeds. Thereafter, based on the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.10210 of 2024, the petitioner sent a fresh 2/5

representation under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the sixth respondent, who is the son born through the first wife of the petitioner's husband, is interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner's land and respondents 7 and 8 are threatening the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings initiated against them and are attempting to evict her from her possession. Hence the present petition has been filed.

4.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already sent a representation to the authorities concerned, the same has to be considered and decided by the said Authorities and no purpose would be served in interfering with the dispute between the mother and the children. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

02.09.2025 ham 3/5

To

1. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

5. The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.

ham 02.09.2025 5/5