Conditions for property transfers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act must be substantiated through evidence, failing which a transfer cannot be declared void.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 (‘Act’, for short) is a critical piece of legislation for seniors because it statutorily obligates children and heirs to provide for their maintenance, care and essential requirements.

2. One of the acme protections therein, available to senior citizens, is rendering property transfers conditional on care, safeguarding their life and property and penalising abandonment. However, under Section 23 of the ‘Act’, the option of the senior to seek the transfer of property, made by them in favour of another, is underpinned on certain specific conditions; and on a question arising - when such conditions are not specifically enumerated in the document - the senior citizen obtains the opportunity to establish it through evidence. There were, earlier, varied opinions on this issue; but through two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this aspect now stands luculently clarified.

3. This Appeal is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)No.25873/2022, which has granted imprimatur to Ext.P4 order of the Statutory Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the provisions of the ‘Act’, through which, a Settlement Deed executed in her favour by her mother-in-law (senior citizen) has been declared void.

4. The facts involved in this case are not greatly in dispute.

5. The factum of the senior citizen, namely the 2^nd respondent herein (who will hereinafter be referred to as Smt.Indira Varasyar, for convenience), being the mother-in- law of the appellant - Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan (who will also be hereinafter referred to by name), is fully admitted. That the property in question was settled by Smt.Indira Varasyar in favour of Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan, through Ext.P1 document, is expressly conceded.

6. The controversy in this case has its genesis in Ext.P2 application, made by Smt.Indira Varasyar against Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan, alleging that, though she was under the ‘expectation’ and ‘belief’ that, the latter would take care of her and provide her basic necessities, while Ext.P1 document was executed, she failed to do so; and consequently, that the provisions of Section 23 of the ‘Act’ apply, thus entitling her to seek that Ext.P1 be declared void.

7. The Maintenance Tribunal, going by Ext.P4 order, appears to have heard the parties several times and to have recorded the versions of either side in detail. Based on such, the Tribunal allowed the application and set aside Ext.P1, against which, Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition, constraining her to file this Appeal before us.

8. Smt.Arundhathi Nair – learned counsel for Smt.Indira Varasyar, argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge are wholly apposite in the given circumstances, especially because every necessary requisite under Section 23 of the ‘Act’ has been fully attracted. She explained that, her client had settled the property in favour of Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan - being her daughter-in-law, at a time when her son (the former’s husband) was not in station, in order to enable her to construct a house by availing a loan. She added that, however, as soon as the settlement was done in such manner, the attitude of Smt.Subha Jayakrishnan completely changed and she began to treat her client with gross indif