Sivanandi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30/01/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI 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
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
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
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 and undisturbed in his house without any interference by the 5th and 6th respondents. The Maintenance and 4/7
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been enacted with a noble intention of ensuring a peaceful life for the senior citizens in the twilight years. Not only that, the word 'Maintenance' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act which makes it clear that "maintenance" to include provisions for food, clothing, residence, medical attendance, and treatment.
In the instant case, though the petitioner owns the house, the claim of the petitioner is that the 5th and 6th respondents are continuing to troubled the petitioner.
6. In this regard, the 4th respondent is directed to take serious view of the compliant lodged by the petitioner and make sure that the 5th and 6th respondent never ever enter into the house situated in Door No.162, Kanakku Appusamy Street, Mandabam, Ramanathapuram District.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 30.01.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no 5/7
pnn L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn
1. 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.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1768 of 2026 6/7
Date : 30/01/2026 7/7