Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2239
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
PRIYA SAMEER HOLKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GAD) MUMBAI CITY MUMBAI AND 3 ORS. – Respondent
WP/1736/2019
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Heramb Kadam i/b Mr. Aditya Andhorikar, for the Petitioner & Applicant in IAL/25747/2023. Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State, Respondent Nos. 1 & 4. Ms. Trupti A. Bharadi, for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in WP/1736/2019 & for the Petitioner in CONPWL/25/2022. Mr. D. S. Hatle a/w Mr. Mandar Surve, for Respondent No. 5.
The Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to annul gift deeds without clear evidence of ownership by senior citizens and cannot adjudicate property disputes related to partnership assets.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4, 5, and 23 - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - The Tribunal directed the daughter-in-law to pay maintenance and annulled gift deeds made to deceased son, citing failure to provide basic needs - The court found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating property ownership issues and annulled the Tribunal's order, except for maintenance payment. (Paras 1-31)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Maintenance Tribunal cannot decide disputes regarding partnership assets or property ownership without clear findings of ownership by senior citizens. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, daughter-in-law of senior citizens, challenged the Tribunal's order directing her to pay maintenance and return properties gifted to her deceased husband, Sameer. The senior citizens claimed the properties were purchased from partnership income. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was set aside due to lack of jurisdiction in annulling gift deeds and adjudicating property ownership, but the petitioner must continue paying maintenance. (Paras 30-31)
Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to annul gift deeds and direct maintenance payments from a daughter-in-law. (Paras 1-2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to annul gifts without evidence of the senior citizens' ownership and that a daughter-in-law is not automatically liable for maintenance unless in possession of the senior citizens' property. (Paras 19-24)
Result: The order of the Maintenance Tribunal is set aside, except for the maintenance payment.
JUDGMENT :-
1) Petition raises an issue as to whether a gift of property made in the name of son by senior citizens can be revoked by the Maintenance Tribunal after son’s death in proceedings filed against the daughter-in-law. Also raised is an issue about responsibility of daughter-in-law to maintain the senior citizens and whether the daughter-in-law can be directed by the Tribunal to pay maintenance to her parents-in-law.
2) Issues arise on account of challenge set up by Petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to the Order dated 9 March 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 (Senior Citizens Act). By its Order, the Maintenance Tribunal has directed Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in respect of two senior citizens from 27 December 2016 and has also set aside the Gift Deeds dated 18 November 2013 and 7 February 2014 under provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, directing her to hand over possession of properties covered by the said two Gift Deeds to the senior citizens within 30 days.
3) Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of senior citizens-Mr. Vasant Raghunath Holkar and Smt. Vaishali Vasant Holkar. Petitioner was married their son- Late Sameer Vasant Holkar. It is the case of the senior citizens that the partnership firm under the name “Print Home” was established in 1986, in which both senior citizens each had 50% shares. That the elder son of the senior citizens-Late Sameer Vasant Holkar was included as a partner in the firm in the year 1996 and the shares were redistributed as Vasant-40%, Vaishali-30% and Sameer-30%. It is the case of senior citizens that after father suffered heart attack, son Sameer started looking after the business. He married Petitioner-Priya in the year 2002. That Sameer and Priya established two more companies i.e. Print World (Proprietor-Sameer Holkar) and Promo World (Proprietress-Priya Holkar). That Sameer purchased various properties out of the income generated from partnership firm in which the senior citizens held 40% and 30% shares. That there are as many as 18 immovable properties purchased out of the income from partnership firm. That Sameer raised various credit facilities from various banks and created mortgages against various properties of senior citizens. That the senior citizens executed Gift Deed dated 18 November 2013 in respect of Flat No. 905 Harikunj Co-operative Society Ltd., Sindhi Colony, Chembur (East), Mumbai. Another Gift deed executed on 4 February 2014 in respect of Gala No. 313-A, Printing Press, Byculla Service Industries, near Rani Baug Byculla East, Mumbai. That Sameer Holkar expired on 13 July 2015. After Sameer's death, Petitioner-Priya started harassing the senior citizens and denied them shares in the properties purchased out of income of partnership firm. The senior citizens accordingly filed compliant before the Maintenance Tribunal.
4) The complaint filed by the senior citizens is adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal by Order dated 9 March 2018 which has issued the following directions:
5) The English translation of the above directions as provided by the Petitioner reads thus:
"1. According to the provisions of Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 under section 4,(2), (4) and under section 5(7), 9 the respondent Mrs Priya Holkar is directed to return back all the properties i.e Gala no 205 A, byculla Service Industrial Estate, B.K Road, Byculla, Mumbai 400 027 also printing machinery and all the / jewelleries, share bonds, LIC policy, cash, postal certificates and ail other things which is in the unlawful custody of the respondent. Further till the Applicant receives all the above property as stated above the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/per month as monthly allowance from the date of complaint filed by the applicant i.e 27/12/2016. That the respondent on recei
