IMPORTANT POINT
Reverse transfer of property in favour of senior citizen – Fixed deposits and jewels are coming under definition of property in Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007and complaint under Section 23 of Act, 2007 filed by petitioner in respect of return of fixed deposits and jewels is very much maintainable.

ORDER

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 07.10.2022, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent dated 05.07.2022, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner and directed the fourth respondent to maintain the petitioner till her lifetime as per her wish.

2. The petitioner is the mother and the fourth respondent is the daughter and the fifth respondent is the son-in-law of the petitioner i.e., husband of the fourth respondent. The petitioner got married one Lingaswamy and gave birth to the fourth respondent and a son L.V. Muralidharan. While her husband was alive, he made a fixed deposit in Kovilpatti Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Company to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- and made a deposit in Sattur Branch of Port City Benefit Fund Limited to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-. In both the deposits, the petitioner was the nominee. After fixed deposit, her husband died and the petitioner is being the nominee all the deposits were transferred in her name. While being so, the fourth respondent and her brother entered into a memorandum of understanding and they had divided all the properties equally including the fixed deposits and undertake to pay interest for the fixed deposits to the petitioner. After a period of sometime, the petitioner was not paid any interest by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner enquired and found that her signature was obtained fraudulently and transferred all fixed deposits in the name of the fourth respondent. The petitioner was not maintained by the fourth respondent as undertaken by her. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 23 of ‘the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007’ (in short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2007’ before the second respondent. The second respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and concluded that the petitioner is receiving a family pension and is also under the custody and maintenance of her son. She does not require any maintenance from the fourth respondent. That apart, the petitioner failed to produce any proof to show that her jewels, other fixed deposits and other properties were taken by the fourth respondent fraudulently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was also rejected and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that now the petitioner is in bedridden. Though she is under the custody of her son, she is very much struggling for her medical expenses and other basic amenities. The fourth respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and also cheated by transferring all the deposits in her favour.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the petitioner is in custody and maintenance of her son. She is also receiving a family pension. Therefore, there is absolutely no financial crisis and the fourth respondent is also ready and willing to maintain her till her lifetime. No signature was obtained from the petitioner fraudulently and in fact, she is also witness to the memorandum of understanding entered between the fourth respondent and her brother. That apart, insofar Rs.20,00,000/- of deposits is concerned, it is still lying in the name of the petitioner and she is receiving interest for the said deposit. He further submitted that the deposits and other jewels are not coming under the provision under Section 23 of the Act, 2007. Section 23 of the Act, 2007 would attract only in respect of immovable properties.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. The claim of the petitioner is that the deposits which were made by her husband were transferred in her name after his demise, since the petitioner is nominee for all fix