IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
G.S. Manju W/o. P. Ajith Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
K.N. Gopi @ Gopinathan Pillai & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No.14802 of 2019(A)
Decided On : 10-10-2019
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules- Section 23- Law only contemplates breach on the part of the transferee in providing amenities and physical needs to the transferor- It does not stipulate that the condition of providing maintenance should be part of such transfer- If love and affection was the circumstances for executing such deed, any failure on the part of the transferee to provide amenities and physical needs to the transferor would attract the grounds for revocation under Section 23.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner is the daughter of the first respondent, who is a senior citizen. The first respondent executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2014. He approached the Maintenance Tribunal to revoke the deed invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules - The Tribunal declined the prayer under Section 23. However, the Tribunal ordered the petitioner to provide necessary facilities to the first respondent to protect his well being. He approached the appellate authority in appeal. The appeal was allowed revoking the deed. Challenging this order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Finding of the court:
The matter requires reconsideration by the Maintenance Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back for reconsideration by the Tribunal as above
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is the daughter of the first respondent, who is a senior citizen. The first respondent executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2014. He approached the Maintenance Tribunal to revoke the deed invoking Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act & Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act). The Tribunal declined the prayer under Section 23. However, the Tribunal ordered the petitioner to provide necessary facilities to the first respondent to protect his well being. He approached the appellate authority in appeal. The appeal was allowed revoking the deed. Challenging this order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. The appeal was heard substantially by the District Magistrate, who is not an appellate authority under Section 16 of the Senior Citizen Act. It is true that in the impugned order, it was mentioned that the District Collector, who is the appellate authority, heard the matter. Nevertheless as revealed from the proceedings, the matter was also heard on several occasions by the District Magistrate. On this ground alone, the matter ought to be remitted to the appellate authority.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the pleadings in the application filed by the senior citizen under Section 23. According to him, the pleadings clearly shows that this is not a case where Section 23 of the Act can be invoked. The learned counsel argues that, Section 23 would be attracted only in the case of admission of a valid transfer. In the application in column No.4, the senior citizen had stated that the deed was fraudulently obtained by undue influence and coercion. Therefore, it was argued that it is a matter of civil dispute. Thus the learned counsel submits that this dispute can be resolved only by a civil court and not by a Maintenance Tribunal under the Act. This argument appears to be attractive.
4. In the light of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to address the question of nature of power and procedure to be followed by the Maintenance Tribunal. This is for giving guidelines to the Tribunal and Authorities under the Senior Citizen Act while exercising the power under the Act.
5. To understand the nature of power of the Tribunal and Authorities under the Act, it is necessary to look at the legislative object of the enactment. Indian society is a religious society. The traditional norms and values of the Indian society emphasize on the duty of taking care of elders. Joint families were prevalent in different forms across the country. In traditional Indian society, duties of children towards one’s parent were considered as a debt owed to them.
5(i) The Kurma Purana, one of the Eighteen Mahapuranas and named after the tortoise avatar of Vishnu prescribes :
“No Deva can equal the mother and no superior can equal one's father. Hence, no son can get relieved of the debt he owes to them.” [Kurma Purana 2.12.36]
5(ii) In Manusmriti, 2/227, it is given that, “Parents who give birth and rear children face agony that cannot be overcome in a hundred years. Therefore, the father, mother and teacher must always be kept happy and content through care and service. This is important to attain truth and success in life.”
5(iii) In Holy Quran, in chapter 2-83 (Al-Baqarah), duty is enjoined upon believers to do good deeds to parents. In chapter 46-15 (Al-Ahqaf), it is mentioned, “And We have enjoined upon man, to his parents, good treatment. His mother carried him with hardship and gave birth to him with hardship, and his gestation and weaning [period] is thirty months. [He grows] until, when he reaches maturity and reaches [the age of] forty years, he says, “My Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favour which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to work righteousness of which You will approve and make righteous for me my offspring. Indeed, I have repented to You,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.