The absence of an explicit maintenance condition in a gift deed is critical for determining its validity under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms.D.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.K.Rout, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

2. Order dated 27th March 2015 of the Maintenance Tribunal- cum-Sub-Collector, Chatrapur passed in Maintenance Case No.01 of 2014 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act) is challenged in present writ petition.

3. Present Opposite Party No.1 is the mother of present Petitioner. She filed the complaint to initiate Maintenance Case No.01 of 2014 against the Petitioner on the premises that the Petitioner has failed to maintain her and also tortured her. Therefore, the gift deed executed by her on 20th January 2012 in favour of the Petitioner may be revoked. Though this prayer has not been specifically stated in the complaint, but the Sub-Collector has interpreted the same in that light.

4. The Sub-Collector upon adjudication declared Gift Deed No.333 dated 20th January 2014 as null and void in terms of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This order of the Sub- Collector is subject matter of challenge in present writ petition.

5. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits on behalf of the Petitioner that in absence of specific condition in the gift deed to maintain the mother, such observation of the Sub-Collector to declare the gift deed as null and void is illegal. She further submits that the contents of the gift deed under Annexure-2 dated 20th January 2012 cannot be interpreted in such a way to put the obligation on the son to maintain the mother as the recipient of the property.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Rout, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 supports the order of the Sub-Collector by referring to specific clause written in the gift deed that the Petitioner is bound to maintain Opposite Party No.1 as a condition of gift.

7. Before dealing with the rival contentions of both parties, some admitted background facts are needed to be described here. The late husband of Opposite Party No.1 was an inspector of police and they had three sons and one daughter including the Petitioner, who is the eldest son. Two properties were there in the name of the family members. One two storey house is at Bhaskar Rao Petta Street in Chatrapur, and the other property is the house at Church Road Street in Chatrapur. The property at Bhaskar Rao Street is recorded jointly in the name of all the family members whereas the property at Church Road Street is recorded in the name of Opposite Party No.1. Before the deed of gift dated 20th January 2012 was executed in favour of the Petitioner, he had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of his other two brothers in respect of the property at Bhaskar Rao Petta Street on 12th March 2010. The property situating at Church Road Street which was in the name of mother was gifted to the Petitioner as the elder son to the extent of one half, and the other half was retained by the mother herself. These are the admitted facts.

Here it is contended by the Petitioner that the deed of relinquishment in favour of other two brothers was the part of family settlement between all the members, whereas the same is disputed by Opposite Party No.1 saying that the deed of relinquishment was executed in lieu of consideration of Rs.22,000/- including the mother.

8. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 reads as under:-

“23.Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances-

(1)Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Ac