AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to protect the Petitioner and his property and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to ensure the life and property of the Petitioner are protected and he is able to live with security and dignity as per Section 20 of Tamilnadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009.
Heard Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M. Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3.
At the time of hearing, the fourth Respondent/son of the Petitioner is present in Court.
By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The Petitioner is the senior citizen. It appears that due to misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent/son, some untoward incidents happened at various point of time. Unable to bear the affront by the son, the Petitioner is before this Court for protection so as to live a life with dignity and free from harassment.
Notice was ordered to the Respondents. Interim direction was issued to the Superintendent of Police to grant protection of the Petitioner in terms of Rule 21(2)(i)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009, after assessing the situations.
A status report has been filed by the second Respondent/Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District setting out the various events that happened in the Petitioner''s family, resulting in the filing of the writ petition. The issue primarily revolves around rights of sibling to inherit the Petitioner''s property. The second Respondent, in compliance to the order of this Court, provided police protection to the Petitioner including surveillance. It is now stated that the different of opinion between the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent got resolved by way of a family settlement and the parties are No. more at loggerheads. Peace appears to have dawned on the family.
Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. Anitter Alwin/fourth Respondent, who is present in Court state that all the issues between the fourth Respondent/son and the Petitioner/father has been resolved amicably. The fourth Respondent assured this Court that there will be No. untoward incident, as it happened in the past and the fourth Respondent will treat the Petitioner/father with due respect and dignity and also take care of his mother.
The statement of the fourth Respondent is recorded. In order to ensure that the present scenario should continue in the future and taking into the need to protect senior citizens as prescribed by law the Superintendent of Police is further directed to comply with the requirements of Rule 21(2)(i)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009, which reads as follows:
21(2) (i) each police station shall maintain an up-to-date list of senior citizens living within its jurisdiction, especially those who are living by themselves (i.e. without there being any member in their household who is not a senior citizen);
(ii) a representative of the police station together as far as possible, with a social worker or volunteer, shall visit such senior citizens at regular intervals of at least once a month, and shall, in addition, visit them as quickly as possible on receipt of a request of assistance from them;
(iii) complaints/problems of senior citizens shall be promptly attended to, by the local police;
(iv) one or more Volunteers'' Committee(s) shall be formed for each Police Station which shall ensure regular contact between the senior citizens, especially those living by themselves on the one hand, and the police and the district administration on the other.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No. costs.