The court emphasized that the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act cannot be misused for settling internal family disputes but must prioritize the welfare of the senior citizen involved.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

[1] Respective replies on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 have been filed in Court today. The same are taken on record. Copies thereof, have been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

[2] The instant matter, is yet another example where the family property dispute is sought to be settled, by invocations of provision of Section 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2007’).

[3] Recently, the petitioner, who is a senior citizen filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, he sought cancellation of transfer deed bearing Wasika No.4352 dated 09.01.2017, and for restorations of land in its original form with the petitioner. The application (supra) was allowed by the Maintenance Tribunal through order dated 24.03.2022. This verdict was not challenged by respondent Nos.3 & 4, but it only challenged by respondent No.5- Kamalpreet Singh, by filing a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007. The said appeal was allowed, as the learned Appellate Authority concerned, has set aside the order passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, and by drawing a verdict dated 25.05.2022, remanded the lis to the learned Maintenance Tribunal, to adjudicate the issue afresh. Post the remand order, the Maintenance Tribunal decided the matter afresh, and thereupon, though the prayer of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of transfer deed was rejected, however, learned Maintenance Tribunal, came to a finding that the petitioner is entitle for maintenance to the extent of Rs.24,000/- per month, which is to be paid equally by all three respondents i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner, while being dis-satisfied with the orders of maintenance, as the petitioner only wanted the cancellation of transfer deed, he preferred a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act (supra). However, he remained unsuccessful in the same, as the appeal was finally dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2023. Both the orders dated 30.06.2022, and 29.03.2023, are now put to challenge by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner in an attempt to challenge the impugned orders draws attention of this Court towards the content of the transfer deed, which carries the specific condition that the transfer is subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and needs. He further submits that post the transfer, the respondent stopped maintaining the petitioner, and therefore, he has no other option but to invoke Section 23 of the Act of 2007. He also submits that it was a positive case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, through the applications that the respondents stopped looking after him, and he is unable to afford his medicines, and unable to do his daily chores as per his own wish, and has no other source of income.

[5] He in addition submits that once there is a violation of the conditions of the transfer deed, the learned Tribunal is required to set aside the transfer made, and there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal concerned to grant the maintenance which was never prayed for.

[6] Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4, submit that the land in question is in possession of respondent No.5, therefore, they are not voluntarily paying the maintenance as imposed upon them by the learned Tribunal. Rather they supported the version of the petitioner to the effect that they are not paying any maintenance, and not serving food