Only A Parent Or Person Above 60 Years Can Prefer Complaint Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras High Court

Justice M Dhandapani thus interfered with an order passed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, directing payment of Rs. 6000 per month as maintenance to the complainant. The court noted that the complainant was neither a parent nor a senior citizen since she had not attained 60 years of age.

“Admittedly, on the date of filing of the complaint, the second respondent [complainant] had not attained the age of 60 years and, therefore, she did not answer the definition of a "senior citizen" under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She is also not the parent of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the complaint itself is not maintainable and the authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by a husband and wife, against the order of the District Collector. It was submitted that the complainant was the daughter of the wife's maternal aunt. The complainant had executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners, along with her mother and maternal uncle. Later, the complainant approached the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking cancellation of the settlement deed.

The RDO refused to cancel the settlement deed. An appeal was preferred before the District Collector. Though the Collector declined to cancel the settlement deed, he directed the couple to pay Rs 6000 per month as maintenance. Against this, the couple had approached the court.

The couple argued that the complaint before the RDO and the appeal before the Collector were not maintainable since the complainant did not fall within the ambit of the Senior Citizens Act. It was submitted that she was only 57 years old at the relevant time and was neither a parent nor a senior citizen. Thus, it was argued that entertaining the plea itself was without jurisdiction.

The complainant accepted the argument and sought liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after attaining 60 years, since she had executed valuable property in favour of the petitioners.

The court agreed with the petitioners and noted that the complainant had not attained 60 years of age to come within the definition of senior citizen under the Act. The court also noted that the complainant was not a parent of the petitioners. Thus, the court noted that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the appeal.

Thus, the court was inclined to allow the plea and set aside the order of the District Collector. The court also gave liberty to the complainant to work out her remedy by filing a fresh complaint before the competent authority, after attaining 60 years.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Ashvath Neelakandan

Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. K. R. Shivashankari Additional Government Pleader, Mr. B. Brijesh Kishore

Case Title: Pradip C Nair and Another v The District Collector and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

Case No: WP (MD) No 17115 of 2025