A married daughter is not required to live with her mother to maintain her; financial support suffices if resources are used for the senior citizen's care.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the orders passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Senior Citizen Act , 2007 (for short' 2007 Act') by which, the transfer of the land by the senior citizen i.e., respondent No.3, in the favour of the petitioner i.e, her daughter, has been set aside on the ground that the daughter is not maintaining the mother.

2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. The land in question belonged to the father of the petitioner, namely, Surinder Singh, who unfortunately died in the year 1993 leaving behind his two daughters and widow Darshana Devi. At the time of his death, both the daughters were unmarried. In the year 2011, the land which was inherited by Darshana Devi from her husband was bifurcated between two daughters, namely, Sunanda Jaryal and Shally Jaryal i.e, present petitioner. The said transfer deed was executed on 15.09.2011. It may be noticed that when the land in question was transferred in the favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was not married at that time.

3. After the transfer of the land, the petitioner was married in the year 2012 and she started residing in her matrimonial home. The mother of the petitioner was living with the other daughter, namely, Sunanda Jaryal. After the marriage of the petitioner, respondent No.3-senior citizen used to lease out the land which was transferred in the favour of the petitioner and the revenue out of the said land was also being managed by the senior citizen with the help of her son-in-law i.e. the husband of Sunanda Jaryal.

4. Thereafter, the senior citizen filed a petition under Section 23 of 2007 Act for cancellation of the transfer deed dated 15.09.2011 on the ground that the petitioner failed to maintain the senior citizen. In the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted that as the senior citizen was living with other daughter and she was living in her own matrimonial house, and the revenue generated out of the land transferred in her favour is being utilized by the senior citizen alongwith the other daughter Sunanda Jaryal, hence the question of not maintaining her while living in her matrimonial house is incorrect. By recording the fact that senior citizen was not being maintained by the petitioner, the transfer deed executed in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.08.2021. It may be noticed that though, the transfer in favour of petitioner was cancelled but similar transfer in favour of the other sister was maintained.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of the Tribunal which came to be decided on 25.07.2023 by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority though noticed that the land transferred in favour of the petitioner was in the possession of the senior citizen, her other daughter and son-in-law and they are utilizing the revenue generated out of the said land but still, held that the petitioner did not provide medicine to Senior citizen-Darshana Devi, who is suffering from ailment, after the order passed by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Both the orders passed by the Authorities are under challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, in the present case, the land was transferred in favour of the petitioner was at the time when she was unmarried however, the land remained in the possession of the senior citizen as well as the other daughter of the senior citizen an