JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, vide which, an application preferred by respondent No.3-senior citizen, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was allowed. Consequently, the transfer deed dated 29.08.2011, executed by her in favour of the petitioner (son), was cancelled. Further, the order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-7), is also assailed, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order (supra), has been dismissed

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there exists no recital of any condition in the transfer deed, with regard to maintaining the senior citizen, as it had been executed purely out of love and affection. While referring to the contents of the application, he submits that, it was averred that transfer was subject to the condition of maintenance by the petitioner, but no evidence, in this regard, was led. So much so, the senior citizen also failed to carve out any pleading in the application, or any cogent evidence to even remotely prove that the petitioner has ever neglected or backtracked from his responsibility to maintain her. However, the learned Maintenance Tribunal, even in the absence of any material on record, has erroneously invoked the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007.

3. Proceeding further with his submissions, it is contended that the petitioner is a permanent citizen of Austria, and owing to that, even the senior citizen is possessed with green card. In this regard, he draws attention of this Court towards the documents issued to the senior citizen by the Austrian Embassy, appended as Annexure P-2. Not just that, she is also receiving a handsome pension from the Austrian Government. Furthermore, when, during the outbreak of pandemic (Covid-19), the senior citizen was stranded in India, it was only due the strenuous efforts put in by the petitioner, she had been able to return to Austria. In this connection, it is pertinent to submit that, had the petitioner not wished to take care of her mother, he would not have made any effort to evacuate her to Austria. While concluding, he submits that, in fact, the application was filed at the behest of the sisters of the petitioner, in order to usurp the property in question.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-senior citizen, while vehemently opposing the stand set out by the petitioner, submits that though, there is no recital in the transfer deed of any such condition, but in the application, it has been categorically stated that transfer is subject to maintenance by the petitioner. He further submits that a specific statement was suffered by the senior citizen before the learned Tribunal that, post transfer of the property, her son backed out, and stopped maintaining her, which is sufficient for invocation of mischief of Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Finally, he submits that the property in question was transferred in equal shares by the senior citizen in favour of both of her sons. However, subsequently, her other son re- transferred the land, whereas, the petitioner refused to do so. Therefore, the senior citizen had no other option, but to approach the learned Maintenance Tribunal.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions, and gone through the record.

6. Unfortunately, this Court is faced with a situation, where it has to decide the rights of mother and son. Considering the sanctity of the relationship between the parties, this Court had put in earnest efforts to resolve the matter amicably. As a consequence, on 11.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner had come up with an offer that entire lease amount of the land in question would be paid to the senior citizen, till her lifetime. Accordingly, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the p