A condition for maintenance under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 need not be expressly written in the gift deed; it can be implicitly inferred from the parties' relationship, conduct, and surrounding circumstances to serve the Act's beneficial purpose.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING MYSAC-MAG/SRCZ/6/2025 DATED 08/10/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURES-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

1. The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner–daughter calling in question the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal/respondent No.1, whereby the gift deed executed by respondent No.2–mother in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”). The said order stands affirmed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner.

2. The undisputed facts reveal that respondent No.2 is a retired Government school teacher and the absolute owner of the subject properties. Owing to matrimonial discord, she resided with the petitioner for a period of about three and a half years. It is the petitioner’s case that on account of alleged harassment by her husband, respondent No.2 was advised by her children to transfer the properties in their favour by way of gift, with an understanding that the rental income would be utilized for her benefit.

3. It is further contended that pursuant to the execution of the gift deeds, the petitioner and respondent No.3 (son) began collecting rent from different portions of the property. However, disputes arose thereafter, leading to allegations that the petitioner and respondent No.3 subjected respondent No.2 to mental harassment and failed to provide for her basic needs.

4. Aggrieved by the alleged neglect and ill-treatment, respondent No.2 invoked Section 23(1) of the Act before the Tribunal seeking cancellation of the gift deeds. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the material on record, allowed the application and annulled the transfer. The said order having been affirmed in appeal, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in cancelling the gift deed in the absence of any express stipulation in the document obligating the petitioner to maintain respondent No.2. It is argued that the gift was executed out of love and affection and, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 23(1) of the Act are not satisfied.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another¹(2024) 14 SCC 225 and contend that the requirement of an express condition is not mandatory and the same can be inferred from the pleadings, surrounding circumstances, and conduct of the parties. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Venkataiah vs. The State of Karnataka²W.P.No.13313 of 2025 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Tajinder Singh Bakshi v. Daljit Kaur ³W.P.(C) No.10854 of 2023 to contend that the beneficent object of the Act cannot be defeated by adopting a hyper-technical interpretation.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In the light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the absence of an express recital in the gift deed regarding maintenance disentitles