High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 10.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANANW.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025andW.M.P.(MD) Nos.1774 & 1775 of 2025Arockia Mary... PetitionerVs.1.The District Collector / Appellate Authority, Office at District Collectorate, Trichy.2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Trichirappalli Taluk, Trichy District.3.Kannikkai Mary... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.G1/2712259/2024 dated 24.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner herein dated 19.11.2024._____________Page No. 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.S.RamasamyFor R1 & R2: Mr.C.Satheesh Government AdvocateFor R3: Mr.S.Solai Alagan for M/s.Aran Legal ConsultancyO R D E RThe petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.G1/2712259/2024, dated 24.12.2024, and to quash the same as illegal, and consequently, to direct the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on 19.11.2024. 2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the third respondent's son, Charles (since deceased). It appears that the petitioner's husband, Charles, died on 08.11.2019. The third respondent has approached the second respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The second respondent has passed an order dated 23.10.2024 with the following observations: _____________Page No. 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025“Miz:kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd ,lj;jpy; kDjhuupd; gps;isfSf;F ,lk; toq;fpAk;> kDjhuupd; kfd; rhu;y]; vd;gtUf;F tPl;bid toq;fpAk; mjpy; vjpu;kDjhuu; trpj;J tUk; epiyapy;> kDjhuu; mtUf;F nrhe;jkhd tPl;by; mtuJ cly;epiy rupapy;yhj fztUld; trpj;J te;j epiyapy; vjpu;kDjhuu; kDjhuiu mtuJ nrhe;j tPl;bypUe;J ntspNaw;wp jw;NghJ kDjhuu; ntspapy; trpj;J tUk; epiyapy;> vjpu;kDjhuu; kDjhuuplk; ve;jgpur;ridAk; ,y;iy vd njuptpj;Js;s epiyapy;> kDjhuupd; tho;ehs; tiu kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd tPl;by; kDjhuu; trpj;Jtu cj;jutpl;Lk;> kDjhuupd; kfs;fSf;F toq;fpathW kUkfs; MNuhf;fpaNkup vd;gtUf;Fk; nrhj;J toq;f Nfhup vjpu;kDjhuu; MNuhf;fpa Nkup vd;gtu; jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mry; tof;F vz;-326/2024 njhlu;e;Js;s epiyapy; nrhj;J njhlu;ghf ePjpkd;wk; %yk; gupfhuk; Njbf;nfhs;s njuptpj;Jk;> kDjhuUf;F nrhe;jkhd tPl;bid kDjhuuplk; vjpu;kDjhuu; xUkhjj;jpy; xg;gilf;f njuptpj;J %j;jFbkf;fs; guhkupg;G kw;Wk; ey;tho;T rl;lj;jpd; fPo; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the first respondent, the District Collector/Appellate Authority, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. By the impugned order dated 24.12.2024, the first respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with the following observations:_____________Page No. 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025“ Nky;KiwaPl;bd; kPjhd Miz:kDjhuu; jpUkjp MNuhf;fpa Nkup f/ng. rhu;y]; kw;Wk; vjpu; kDjhuu; jpUkjp.fhzpf;ifNkup f/ng fhspKj;J MfpNahupd; tprhuiz thf;F%yq;fs; mbg;gilapy; Nkw;gb tPlhdJ vjpu;kDjhuhfpa fhzpf;ifNkup kw;Wk; fhzpf;ifNkupapd; fztuhd fhyQ;nrd;w fhspKj;J vd;gtUk; Jg;guT gzp nra;J tPl;bid fl;bAs;sdu; vd;gJ njupa tUfpwJ.vjpu;kDjhuu; jpUkjp.fhzpf;ifNkup vd;gtupd; taNjhfpf epiyapid fUj;jpy; nfhz;L> kDjhuu; jpUkjp.MNuhf;fpaNkup vd;gtu; Nkw;gb tPl;bid vjpu;kDjhuu; trpj;jpl VJthf xU khj fhy mtfhrj;jpw;Fs; jpUkjp.fhzpf;ifNkupaplk; xg;gilf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;W njuptpj;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.NkYk; vjpu;kDjhuu; ,t;Tj;jputpid epiwNtw;w jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l fhty;Jiwapdu; %yk; fLk; eltbf;if vLf;FkhWk; jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp tUtha; Nfhl;lhl;rpaUf;F ,jd; %yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.”4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the land measuring an extent of 1752 sq.ft. originally belonged to Ayaniji Ammal, the mother of the third respondent's husband, Savarimuthu. After the death of the said Ayaniji Ammal, the said Savarimuthu, husband of the third respondent, grabbed the entire property without sharing it with the other legal heirs and settled the same in favour of the third respondent by way of a Settlement Deed dated 18.12.2008, registered as Document No.8144 of 2008. _____________Page No. 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 20255. It is submitted that the third respondent thereafter settled the property in favour of the petitioner's husband, Charles, as well as her sister and her sister's son and daughter, vide Settlement Deed dated 25.07.2018, registered as Document No.4495 of 2018. The property was jointly settled, and the parties orally partitioned the same among themselves, as per which three portions of the land were allotted to the petitioner's sister-in-law and her children, and one portion was allotted to the petitioner's husband, Charles. The petitioner's husband, Charles, had put up a dwelling house in the year 1995 itself, wherein the petitioner and her three children have been residing. 6. It is submitted that the third respondent, at the instigation of the petitioner's sister-in-laws and their children, had filed a complaint before the second respondent, which culminated in an order dated 23.10.2024. The said order was confirmed by the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 in the appeal filed by the petitioner. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been directed to provide shelter to the third respondent during her lifetime. No other relief was sought by the third respondent. _____________Page No. 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 20257. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents, and the learned counsel for the third respondent, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. At the outset, it has been stated there is no scope for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such review is limited to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The order of the second respondent dated 23.10.2024 and the order of the first respondent dated 24.12.2024 cannot be faulted, as the petitioner's husband, Charles, had no independent right over the property. 8. The third respondent is only seeking shelter during her lifetime. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was not maintainable in view of the express language of Section 16 of the said Act. In fact, the First Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court, in K. Raju vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 129 : 2021 (1) L.W. 820, has held as under: _____________Page No. 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 20259. When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favour of a class of persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision. When the words used in Section 16 of the Act are “Any senior citizen or a parent ... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal...” and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides. 9. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent is misconceived, and the order passed by the second respondent does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Considering the same, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.10.07.2025 JENIndex: Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes/No_____________Page No. 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025To1.The District Collector / Appellate Authority, Office at District Collectorate, Trichy.2.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichirappalli Taluk, Trichy District._____________Page No. 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025C.SARAVANAN , J. JENW.P.(MD) No.2512 of 2025 10.07.2025_____________Page No. 9 of 9