← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3675/2024disposed of

Fatima. B v. The District Collector

2025-08-21Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan9 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.3598 of 2024 B.Fatima ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Dindigul.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. District Superintendent, Dindigul District.

3.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Dindigul.

4.Tribunal Officer cum the Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanakkanoor Police Station, Dindigul District. 1/9

6.B.Raju 7.B.Muthupandi @ Rajkapoor ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned order in Pa.Mu.No.362907/ 2022/C1 dated 01.11.2023 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to protect the Petitioner and ensure the life and dwelling house and two shops of the petitioner in Door No.130A, 131A, Kodai Road, Main Road, Ammayanayakanoor, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul as per Section 20 of Tamilnadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For R1, R3 & R4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader For R2 & R5 : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R6 & R7 : No appearance

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent bearing Ref.Pa.Mu.No.362907/2022/C1 dated 01.11.2023. 2.Despite service of notice for appearance through counsel, there is no representation on behalf of the private respondents 6 and 7, who are none other 2/9

than the petitioner's other two sons. The petitioner is presently living with her third son, namely, Saleem.

3.The petitioner is the co-owner of the property, which was purchased in the name of the petitioner and her late.husband, Balu @ Mohammed. The petitioner's husband died on 12.10.2020.

4.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been ousted from the property by her other two sons, namely, Kabber @ B.Raju and B.Muthupandi, respondent Nos.6 and 7 and that the petitioner has been forced to stay with the third son, namely, Saleem.

5.It is submitted that the petitioner should be allowed to stay in the house, as the petitioner has equal share in the property, whereas, the respondents 6 and 7 have ousted the petitioner. It is noticed that the petitioner had earlier approached the fourth respondent, who, by his proceedings, dated 22.07.2022, had ordered payment of Rs.2,500/- by each of the three sons, namely, respondents 6 and 7 herein and the third son, Saleem, with whom the petitioner is now staying. 3/9

6.The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the fourth respondent, dated 22.07.2022, approached the first respondent, who, by order dated 01.11.2023, has ordered enhancement of maintenance from Rs.2,500/- to 7,500/-, however, has asked the petitioner to workout the remedy insofar as the right to residence in the house that was standing in the name of the petitioner and her late husband, Balu @ Mohammed. The reason forthcoming in the impugned order of the first respondent is as under:- 4/9

7.Reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been asked to workout the remedy insofar as the residence is concerned before the civil Court, as the petitioner's two sons, the respondents 6 and 7, are having equal 5/9

rights ie., 50% share along with the petitioner and the petitioner's third son. 8.The fact remains that the petitioner is the co-owner of the property and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for shelter, as the Act is intended to protect the interest of the senior citizen. The order of the first respondent directing the petitioner to workout the remedy before the civil Court cannot be countenanced, particularly, in the light of the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

9.Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 01.11.2023 insofar as the direction that the petitioner has to workout her remedy before the civil Court is concerned is set aside. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner will be entitled to right of residence and shelter in the house standing in the name of the petitioner and her late.husband, namely, Balu @ Mohammed. 10.Considering the same, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to depute Officers from the Revenue Department to ensure that the petitioner's needs are taking care by the respondents 6 and 7 and the petitioner's third son, 6/9

namely, Saleem, by accommodating her in the house, which stood in the name of the petitioner and her late.husband, Balu @ Mohammed. 11.Since the maintenance amount has been ordered to be enhanced, the third respondent may also ensure that the enhanced maintenance amount is paid by the respondents 6 and 7 together with the petitioner's third son. 12.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 21.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Dindigul.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. District Superintendent, Dindigul District.

7/9

3.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Officer, Dindigul.

4.Tribunal Officer cum the Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Revenue Divisional Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanakkanoor Police Station, Dindigul District. 8/9

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mm 21.08.2025 9/9