W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 Abdul Kathar ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The District Collector, Trichy. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy. 3.Fathima 4.Mamaji Kani ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.G1/795956/2023 dated 12.05.2023 and quash the same as illegal and thereby direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 /- each as maintenance to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Madhu 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : No appearance ORDER Despite the name of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 being printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4. The respondents 3 and 4 are the daughters of the petitioner. 2.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent, dated 12.05.2023, whereby, the first respondent has affirmed the decision of the second respondent, dated 03.03.2023. 3.By the aforesaid order, the second respondent has ordered payment of Rs. 3,000/- by both the private respondents 3 and 4. Operative portion of the order of the second respondent, dated 03.03.2023, reads as under:- “kDjhuUk; je;ijAkhd jpU.mg;Jy;fhjh; vd;gtUf;F vjph;kDjhuUk; kfSkhd jpUkjp.ghj;jpkh khjguhkupg;G njhifahf U.3000/- [ kDjhuupd; tq;fpf;fzf;fpy; nrYj;jNtz;Lk; vd;W Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.” 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 4.Operative portion of the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12.05.2023, is as under:- “kDjhuUk; je;ijAkhd jpU.mg;Jy;fhjh; vd;gtUf;F vjph;kDjhuUk; kfSkhd jpUkjp.ghj;jpkh khjguhkupg;G njhifahf U.3000/- (Ugha; %d;whapuk; kl;Lk;) j;jpid kDjhuupd; tq;fpf;fzf;fpy; nrYj;jNtz;Lk; vd;w jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp tUtha; Nfhl;lhl;rpahpd; cj;juit cWjp nra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.” 5.The facts on record reveal that the petitioner has executed a settlement deed, dated 13.08.2018 in favour of the third respondent alone. It appears that the third respondent is estranged from her husband and is having certain matrimonial dispute with her husband. 6.The third respondent has stated that there is money transaction between the petitioner and the third respondent. The fourth respondent has stated that the fourth respondent has matrimonial dispute and is estranged with her husband and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot maintain the petitioner. 7.It is noticed that the third respondent is aged about 65 years. The order of the second respondent has not clearly discussed as to whether the petitioner is in a 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 position to maintain himself. Merely because the settlement deed, dated 13.08.2018, which was executed in favour of the third respondent does not contain a Clause that the third respondent is required to maintain the petitioner ipso facto will not mean that the third respondent can getaway with the obligations under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 8.There is subtle difference between the gift deed and the settlement deed and this aspect has been brought out by this Court in Pandiselvi vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Executive Magistrate and others in W.P.(MD No.26973 of 2023, dated 14.08.2025. Therefore, even if there is no Clause for maintenance of the settler in the settlement deed, there is an implicit obligation for the settlee to maintain the settler or any person, with whom the settler wanted to maintain. 9.This could be in terms of the definition of settlement in Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This aspect has been considered at length and therefore, the Court had declined to interfere with the order of the Revenue Authorities declining to uphold the cancellation of the settlement deed under 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 some more similar circumstances, where the Court has also taken note of the conflict view and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787, wherein, in para 23 onwards, the Court has reiterated the object behind the enactment of the Act. 10.Under these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 03.03.2023 as also the first respondent, dated 12.05.2023 and remit the cases back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, in the light of the observations of this Court in Pandiselvi vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Executive Magistrate and others in W.P.(MD No.26973 of 2023, dated 14.08.2025. 11.This exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the private respondents herein shall be heard before final orders are passed. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 12.The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Index : Yes / No 21.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The District Collector, Trichy. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 C.SARAVANAN, J. mm W.P.(MD) No.5407 of 2024 21.08.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis