P.Jayanthi v. The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Central Chennai Division

W.P.No.4826 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.06.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.4826 of 2024 AndW.M.P.Nos.5264, 5265, 20689 and 20693 of 2024P.Jayanthi ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Central Chennai Division, Chennai.

Pasupathy ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka. No.1105/2023/A4 dated 22.09.2023 against the petitioner herein on the basis of the petition filed by the third respondent dated 24.02.2023 filed under Senior Citizenship Act, quash the same and 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4826 of 2024consequently direct the third respondent not to disturb the petitioner from possessing, occupying and enjoying the residence at No.17/9, Kannaiya Street, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093 in the manner unknown to law. For Petitioner : Mr.A.ThirunavukarasuFor Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1, R2 Government Counsel Mr.M.Jayakumar for R3

O R D E RThe petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1105/2023/A4 dated 22.09.2023 against the petitioner on the basis of the petition filed by the third respondent dated 24.02.2023 filed under Senior Citizenship Act, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent not to disturb the petitioner from possessing, occupying and enjoying the residence at No.17/9, Kannaiya Street, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093 in the manner unknown to law. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the third respondent. The third 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4826 of 2024respondent filed complaint before the second respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, against the petitioner and two daughters. The learned counsel further submitted that the elder daughter of the petitioner got married and now residing along with her family and the younger daughter is residing along with the petitioner. The third respondent often beaten the petitioner, thereby the younger daughter lodged complaint before the law enforcing agency and the law enforcing agency advised the third respondent not to indulge in such activities and aggrieved by the same, the third respondent left the house and thereafter filed complaint before the second respondent and the second respondent directed the petitioner and the daughters to take care of the third respondent and to provide shelter for him. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the third respondent have sufficient means to maintain himself and in order to harass the petitioner/ wife and two daughters, he made complaint before the second respondent and the second respondent passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable one.

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4826 of 2024submitted that the third respondent filed complaint before the second respondent claiming Rs.15,000/- each from the two daughters and for providing shelter since the property in which the petitioner and their daughter are residing stands in the name of the petitioner and he did not claim anything from the petitioner, thereby the second respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner and their daughters to provide him shelter and to take care of the third respondent. However, their daughters instigated the petitioner to file this writ petition.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.