A settlement deed cannot be cancelled without conditions regarding maintenance, and the right to reside in the property cannot be denied to the transferor under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1304/2021/A2 passed by the second respondent on 02.02.2022, in which, the settlement deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner bearing Doc.No.5604 of 2012, dated 23.08.2012 on the file of Kallikudi Sub Registry was cancelled.

2.The petitioner is one among the two sons of the fourth respondent. The 4^th respondent made an application under section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the second respondent seeking to cancel the settlement deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner.

3.The petitioner is working as a Mason. On receipt of the said application, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 02.02.2022 cancelling the settlement deed along with the default clause, i.e., if the petitioner refuses to oblige the order, dated 02.02.2022, he would be subjected to 6 months imprisonment or to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5604 of 2012, dated 23.08.2012 executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner is an unconditional one. The said settlement deed was executed by the fourth respondent out of her love and affection towards the petitioner. In view of the same, the second respondent did not have the authority to cancel the same. That apart, he also stated that the second respondent did not have any authority to inflict punishment in case of default by the petitioner to implement the said order. On that basis, pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent drew my attention to the impugned order, which would reveal that at the time of enquiry, both the petitioner and the fourth respondent had appeared before the second respondent and the petitioner himself had admitted before the second respondent that the fourth respondent and her husband are residing in the house i.e., RCC building situated in 264.5 sq.ft land comprised in S.No.241 of Mochikulam village, Kuraiyur Post, Tirumangalam taluk, Madurai District.

6.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the aforesaid fact has been admitted by the petitioner in the reply notice given by his counsel on 03.03.2021 to the legal notice issued by the fourth respondent's counsel. He further submitted that the maintenance includes the right of living. In view of the same though the validity of cancellation of settlement deed is disputed by the petitioner. right to reside in the subject house cannot be negated by the petitioner and pressed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines the term 'maintenance'. The same is extracted as follows:

“2.Definitions:

b. "maintenance" includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment”

8.It is needless to state when the provision for food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment is included to define in the word maintenance, the right of the fourth respondent to reside in the house situated in the property, which has already been settled by her in favor of the petitioner cannot be defeated under any circumstances.

9.However, the matter has already been dealt with by this Court in umpteen number of cases and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara Vs Ramti Devi reported in 2022 SCC Online 1687 has categorically held that absen