A gift deed may imply conditions of care and support under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, even without explicit clauses in the document.

JUDGMENT

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Ext.P4 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Ottappalam, in H-677/21 dated 20.7.2022, under the provision of Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizen Act 2007 (‘the Act’ for short) and rules of 2009 framed thereunder.

2. The petitioner herein is the wife of the 2^nd respondent’s elder son. The petitioner has two daughters out of wedlock. When the marital relationship between the petitioner and her husband was strained, she left her husband, children, the matrimonial home and started living separately.

3. The 2^nd respondent, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and mother of her husband filed a complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal stating that the 2^nd respondent is currently residing with her son and the younger daughter. It was informed in the complaint that the son and his wife have two daughters, and the elder daughter is living with the complainant. The 2^nd respondent, her son, his wife (petitioner), and two daughters were living happily, and in the year 2015, the son decided to go to the Gulf for employment purposes. Before leaving to the Gulf, for the purpose of constructing a house, the property, which is in the name of the 2nd respondent, was registered in the name of the petitioner through a gift deed executed by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the petitioner.

2.The gift deed was executed in favor of the petitioner only because her son was going abroad at that time. The complaint states that the gift deed was executed on the understanding that the son of the second respondent and his family would enjoy the property after the second respondent’s death and that, while she was alive, she would have the right to live and enjoy the said property. The property was transferred in the name of the petitioner on familial trust and affection with a clear understanding that it was for the use and enjoyment of the family.

3.After the marriage of the elder daughter in December 2019, the petitioner left the matrimonial home in February 2020 leaving behind her husband and the daughter. The petitioner, after leaving the matrimonial home, wanted to alienate the property. However, the gift deed was executed with clear understanding that the property was meant for use and enjoyment of the 2^nd respondent, her son and grandchildren.

4.It was stated that, as the petitioner violated the trust and understanding and in violation of the trust and clear understanding, she wanted to alienate the property behind the back of the 2nd respondent, the gift deed was required to be canceled, and the property should be reverted back to the 2^nd respondent.

5.The matter was referred to conciliation. Initially, the petitioner was present, but thereafter, she did not turn up for conciliation. The Tribunal conducted the trial, and the hearing took place on several dates between 27.04.2021 and 25.05.2022.

6.The 2^nd respondent has submitted that after her husband's death, the property was to be equally divided among the three children and in her name. The share that she received is in her possession, where she lives with her son and grandchildren.

7.The petitioner and her husband, who is none other than the elder son of the 2nd respondent, convinced the 2nd respondent that for taking a loan, the property need to be transferred in the name of the petitioner for the purposes of constructing a house. The property was transferred in her name as her husband was going abroad. The 2^nd respondent was con