AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: The Madras high court has set aside an order directing two people to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance to a 57-year-old woman, holding that she was not a "senior citizen" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, when she filed the complaint.The court, in its order dated August 4, 2026, also noted that the woman was not the parent of the petitioners and held that the authorities did not have the power to hear her complaint under the Act.Why did the woman approach the authorities?According to the court order, the woman was related to one of the petitioners. She, along with her mother and maternal uncle, had given some property to the petitioners through a settlement deed.Later, the woman wanted the settlement deed to be cancelled. So, she approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and asked him to cancel it. However, the RDO refused.She then challenged the RDO's decision before the District Collector. The collector also refused to cancel the settlement deed. However, he ordered the petitioners to pay the woman Rs 6,000 every month as maintenance.The petitioners then approached the high court and challenged the collector's order.Their counsel argued that the woman could not have used the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to seek maintenance because she was only 57 years old when she filed the complaint. The lawyer also pointed out that she was not the mother or parent of the petitioners.The woman's counsel accepted that she was below 60 when she filed the complaint. He asked the high court to allow her to approach the authorities again after she turns 60. He also pointed out that she had given valuable property to the petitioners through the settlement deed.Why did the Madras high court set aside the maintenance order?Justice M. Dhandapani noted that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act applies to people who have attained the age of 60 years.The court found that the woman was only 57 when she filed the complaint. It also noted that she was not the parent of the petitioners."Admittedly, on the date of filing of the complaint, the second respondent 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," the court said.The court further held that since she was not the parent of the petitioners, her complaint under the Act could not be entertained by the authorities."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 high court accordingly allowed the petition and set aside the District Collector's order dated April 17, 2025, which had directed the petitioners to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance.However, the court gave the woman liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent authority after she turns 60, if she is otherwise eligible under the law.The high court accordingly set aside the collector's order. It also said there would be no order as to costs.