Sulaiman v. Kadhar Batcha

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.(MD)No.1478 of 2025 & C.M.P(MD)No.8629 of 2025

1. Sulaiman

2. Kasim ...Appellants - Vs. -

1. Kadhar Batcha 2.The District Collector Cum The Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, (Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum the Chairman of Sub Divisional Tribunal, (Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.28553 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024.

1/7

For Appellants : Ms.G.Prabahari For Respondents : Ms.Madhu Bala for Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar for R1 Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3 JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.11.2024 in and by which, the learned single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the children have no right to prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order passed by the Tribunal constituted under Section 15 of the Act.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the very nomenclature of the Act, namely, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, permits the senior citizens to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, and the appellants though children to the first respondent, they by themselves are senior citizens as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Therefore, the finding rendered by the learned single Judge that the 2/7

appellants have no right to prefer an appeal is contrary to the plain reading of the provision. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned counsel for the first respondent, and she would contend that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Raju vs. 1.Union of India and three others, in W.P.(MD)No.29988 of 2019, dated 19.02.2021 has upheld the vires of Section 16 of the Act and categorically held that only the senior citizens and the parents can prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the Act and not the children. Hence, she would contend that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the either side submissions.

5. In the case in hand, the first respondent, namely, one Kadhar Batcha, has two sons by name Sulaiman and Kasim, who are the appellants herein. It appears that Kadhar Batcha has executed a settlement 3/7

deed in favour of his sons. Since they did not maintain him, he preferred a claim before the Tribunal / third respondent constituted under the Act and the third respondent ultimately granted relief in favour of Kadhar Batcha. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants herein have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal / second respondent by invoking Section 16 of the Act. The second respondent, vide order dated 18.05.2023 set aside the order of the third respondent and ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the first respondent. Challenging which, the first respondent has preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge has held that the appellants herein have no right to prefer the appeal as the Act provided appeal remedy only to the senior citizens and the parents.

The said decision was fortified through the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K.Raju vs. 1.Union of India and three others (supra), wherein the Division Bench has categorically held that except senior citizens and parents, no other person has got any right to prefer an appeal and there can be no room for imagination that the other persons aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal.

4/7

6. But now, we are facing with the piquant situation as the appellants who are the children of the first respondent have also become senior citizens by their age. Therefore, it is contended that they being the senior citizens who come within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act, the appeal preferred by them is maintainable. No doubt, the appellants may be senior citizens as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, but, they also come within the definition of children defined under Section 2(a) of the Act.

7. Apart from that, while looking at the object and reasons of the Act, the very Act came into effect to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives. In the case in hand, the combined reading of the definition "senior citizens" along with the definition of "children" defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, in the back drop of the object and reasons of the Act, derive to the only conclusion that the word "senior citizen" does not include the "children" who become senior citizen. Therefore, we are of the indubitable view that the finding rendered by the learned single Judge is in order and liable to be 5/7

confirmed, as the appellants could not make out any case to deviate from such well merited finding.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.,J.] & [C.K., J.] 30.10.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes mbi To 1.The District Collector Cum The Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, (Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum the Chairman of Sub Divisional Tribunal, (Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.

6/7

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mbi 30.10.2025 7/7