The broad interpretation of 'property' under the Senior Citizens Act and the obligation of children to maintain senior citizens for them to lead a normal life.

ORDER :

1. This is a sad case where petitioner no.1 alongwith his wife-petitioner no.2 and their daughter-petitioner no.3 have dragged his parents-respondent nos.1 and 2, who are aged 90 years and 89 years respectively, in protracted legal proceedings. It appears that as a last resort, respondent nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “parents”) invoked the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “the Senior Citizens Act”) on which the impugned order has been passed by the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal (for short “the tribunal”) granting relief to the parents, against which the petitioners have filed this petition. The impugned order reads thus:-

“1. The application of the applicant is partly allowed.

2. The request for the maintenance amount has been rejected.

3. The respondents shall vacate the said flat no.13/B, 5th floor, Blue Sea Apartment, Near Juhu Koliwada, Juhu Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400049 within thirty days from the receipt of this order and shall peacefully hand over its vacant possession to the applicants.

4. In case of any breach of above orders by the respondents, the applicants have to approach to the local Police Station. Tahsildar Andheri with the help of Senior Police Inspector, Juhu Police Station shall cause to implement these orders.

5. No order about the costs.

6. These orders have to be communicated to all concerned parties.”

2. The record indicates that earlier respondent no. 2-mother was required to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and in such proceedings, protective orders dated 31.01.2016 came to be passed in her favour by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were interalia prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence as also petitioner no.1 son was directed to pay Rs.7000/-p.m. to the mother from the date of application (6.2.2010) with a further direction that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing possession of the mother from the shared household.

3. The misery of the parents at such advance stage of their lives however did not end as it appears from the parents’ case before the Tribunal that petitioner no. 1 and 2 with a view to forcibly grab the flat in which the parents are residing and who had permitted the petitioners to reside along with them are harassing and torturing the parents since many years. It does not appear to be in dispute that the flat in question belonged to the father who gifted the flat in favour of his two daughters (sisters of petitioner no. 1) by registered gift deed dated 27 May, 2016. According to the parents, the daughters have permitted the parents to occupy the flat considering their old age. It appears that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 however were extremely dissatisfied with the father gifting the flat to the daughters. According to the parents, petitioner No.1-son, for selfish motives would not stop torturing them. Petitioner no. 1 also instituted proceedings before the Civil Court seeking declaration that the gift deed executed by the father in favour of his daughters be declared illegal.

4. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners has limited submissions to assail the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He firstly submits that there are observations made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the orders passed on the mother’s application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act”) to the effect that the mother would not be entitled for an order directing the son to be removed from the shared household. Hence, according to him, once such observation was made, it would be binding on both the parents and hence the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order. The second contention as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that under section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, the parent