IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While declaring a transfer of property to be void under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, power to order for return of property relating to said transfer also flows from it.
(2) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 contemplates filing of an Application under Section 4 along with other provisions by a ‘senior citizen’ who has attained age of 60 years on the date of filing of Application under this Act and not otherwise.
(3) Provisions of a statute has to be interpreted in a manner which will give ultimate effect to intention of legislature in enacting it and not to frustrate it.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J.—The present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the Order dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the Maintenance Officer and Assistant Commissioner Social Welfare, Mumbai City (Appellate Authority) under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Said Act”), the Respondent No.2 herein, dismissing the Appeal No. 277/2016-2017 preferred by the Petitioners under Section 16 of the said Act and confirming the Order dated 12th August 2016 passed by the Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer, Tribunal for Maintenance Of Parents and Senior Citizens, Mumbai City, i.e. Respondent No.3 herein.

2. Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Thatte, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Bane, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire record annexed to the Petition.

3. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the Respondent No.1. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the major children of the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.1. The record indicates that, the Petitioner No.1 wife along with major children i.e. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are on one side, whereas the Respondent No.1 husband is on the other side, in the litigation.

The subject matter of the present Petition comprises of three properties, namely-

(i) Shop Nos.10 and 11, Bhiku Building, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 (the “subject Property No.1”)

(ii) Office No. 25, Bhiku Building, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 (the “subject Property No.2”) and

(iii) Workshop No. 110, Municipal Industrial Estate, Dainik Shivner Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (the “subject Property No.3”).

The Subject Property Nos.1, 2 and 3 above are collectively referred to as the “Subject Properties”.

4. The record further indicates that, the Respondent No.1 had been conducting proprietary business of wooden furniture, marble idols and temples etc. under the name of ‘Aakaar’ at the subject property No. 1, on tenancy basis from original landlords since the year 1979 till 2001. That, by virtue of Deed of Conveyance dated 31st August, 2001 and 18th December 2002 respectively, the Respondent No.1 purchased the entire subject property No. 1 above. That, by virtue of Deed of Conveyance dated 23rd March 2004, the Respondent No.1 being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), which was comprising of the Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioners herein, purchased the subject property No. 2 above. That, the subject property No.3 above was assigned completely in favour of the Respondent No.1 by Deed of Assignment dated 16th May 1994.

It thus clearly reveals that, the aforestated subject properties are self acquired properties of the Respondent No.1 and/or the Respondent No.1 has exclusive rights in the said properties, presently occupied by the Petitioners.

5. It is the case of the Petitioners that, on account of ill health of the Respondent No.1 and his inability to attend the business, he executed a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as, ‘POA’) dated 3rd October, 2002 in favour of the Petitioner No.1. That, thereafter since the health of the Respondent No.1 further deteriorated the Respondent No.1 executed an Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable POA dated 5th January, 2005 in favour of the Petitioner No.1. That, the business of ‘Aakaar’ multiplied manifold since the Petitioner No.1 was in complete charge of the said business from 3rd October 2002. Some time in the year 2006, the Petitioner No.1 started conducting business in the name of ‘Aakaar Exquisites’. The relations between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.1 got strained and there was a discord between them. That, the Respondent No.1 abandoned his family and his obligation towards the Petitioners and in the year 2008 left the family home at Prabhadevi and the business.

6. The Petitioner No.1 in pursuance of and on the basis of the POAs granted in her favour as mentio