The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a maintenance order that directed the petitioners to pay Rs 6,000 every month to a relative, ruling that the woman who sought the money was neither a senior citizen nor a parent of the petitioners - and therefore could not maintain her complaint under the Senior Citizens Act at that stage.
The dispute arose within the family. Shantakumari, the second respondent, is the daughter of the maternal aunt of petitioner M.G. Rajani. Shantakumari, along with her mother and maternal uncle, had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners, Pradip C. Nair and M.G. Rajani.
Things soured later. Shantakumari approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, asking that the settlement deed be cancelled. The RDO refused. Undeterred, she took the matter in appeal before the District Collector of Kanniyakumari. On 17 April 2025, the Collector too declined to cancel the deed — but added a twist: he directed the petitioners to pay Rs 6,000 per month towards Shantakumari's maintenance.
Aggrieved, the petitioners moved the High Court under Article 226, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector's order, calling it illegal and without jurisdiction.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr V. Ashvath Neelakandan, argued that the entire proceeding was misconceived from the start. Shantakumari, he pointed out, was only 57 years old when she filed her complaint — well short of the 60-year threshold that defines a "senior citizen" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Nor was she a parent of the petitioners. On both counts, he submitted, the Act simply did not apply to her, and the authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain her complaint at all.
Counsel for Shantakumari did not contest this position outright. Instead, he fairly submitted that she may be granted liberty to approach the authorities afresh once she turns 60, given that she had parted with valuable property in the petitioners' favour.
Justice M. Dhandapani agreed with the petitioners' reading of the law. The order noted that admittedly, the second respondent had not attained 60 years on the date of filing her complaint, and was therefore outside the definition of "senior citizen" under the 2007 Act. She was also, the Court observed, not the parent of the petitioners.
The judge held that in such circumstances, "the complaint itself is not maintainable and the authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same." As a result, the Collector's order directing monthly maintenance could not survive.
The writ petition was allowed, and the Collector's order dated 17 April 2025 was set aside. However, the Court left the door open for Shantakumari, granting her liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent authority after she turns 60 — provided she is otherwise eligible under law. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: Pradip C. Nair & Another vs The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District & Another
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.17115 of 2025
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
