JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

1. The instant writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Senior Citizens Act") whereby it restricts the applicability of the Section only to the gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Senior Citizens Act.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

i. The Petitioner is a senior citizen who was allotted a property bearing No. II-E/3, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide lease deed dated 18.01.1950 and also through the deed of conveyance of building dated 26.06.1962.

ii. It is stated that the Petitioner has four sons and four daughters. The Petitioner states that two of his sons, namely, Ramandeep Singh Ahluwalia and Manjit Singh Ahluwalia fraudulently got gift deeds signed by the Petitioner in their favour on 02.05.2007 in respect of the first floor, basement and ground floor of the aforesaid property.

iii. It is stated that at the time of making gift, the rentals from the said property was more than Rs.10 lakh for each floor. It is stated that the properties which were gifted by the Petitioner was a source of income for the Petitioner and after the gift deed was executed, the rentals received were being appropriated by his two children to whom the properties were gifted.

iv. It is stated that the two sons of the Petitioner in whose favour the property has been gifted are not taking care of the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner has been manhandled and tortured by his two sons. It is stated that since the Petitioner is now 97 years of age, he is infirm and heartbroken and is scared of his two sons to file any complaint with the Police. v. The Petitioner states that he wants to revoke the gifts which were made in favour of his two sons.

3. The Petitioner states that, the Senior Citizens Act came into force in the year 2008. Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act reads as under:-

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.—(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. The Petitioner in short wants the words "after the commencement of the Act" to be taken away or struck down from Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. It is stated that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act is read only prospectively. The principal contention of the Petitioner is that this Section goes against the object and purpose of the Act to protect Senior Citizens. It is stated that the senior citizens who have gifted their properties to their children or near and dear ones with the hope that they will be taken care of by them, are not being maintained by the persons to whom the property has been gifted, rather they are being tortured and abused. It is submitted that in such a scenario the Act must read in a manner to permit the senior citizens to revoke the gifts made by th