The court held that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act requires express conditions in transfer documents for declaring them void, emphasizing judicial respect for property rights.

Vinod Chandran, J.

“Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older they judge them; sometimes they forgive them”.

[Oscar Wilde]

Only sometimes; but that is no reason to stop loving them, refuse to care for them and alienate them, is the principle on which the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for brevity 'the Act'] has been interpreted in majority of the decisions of this Court and some other High Courts. Certain Benches trode a different path to find that the statute though inspired by traditional values, all the same has to be interpreted strictly and there could be no question of unrequited love raised; to bring in drastic consequences to the rights on property gifted or settled by reason of the love and affection of the donor or settler for the beneficiary. The matter is placed before us through a reference made by a Division Bench seeking resolution of the conflict; specifically on the extent to which Section 23 of the Act could proceed in annulling such rights obtained in immovable property by transfer inter-vivos. We would refer to the conflicting decisions as we record the arguments.

2. Smt.Parvathi Menon, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/senior citizen, argued for the position that, in the absence of the condition under Section 23 (1) being expressed in the document of transfer; the Tribunal constituted under the Act has a duty to inquire into the circumstances under which a transfer has been effectuated by a senior citizen, in this case the mother herself. There could be no insistence of a condition being available in the deed, as to the transfer having been effected on condition of the transferee providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, a senior citizen. The mere expectation of such a reciprocal understanding would suffice, which, even if not expressed, could be implied or inferred, from the recitals in the document or the circumstances surrounding it's execution. If on an inquiry the condition can be inferred or implied; and if the transferor-senior citizen asserts breach, then the deeming provision squarely applies and the transfer could be declared void by the Tribunal at the option of the senior citizen.

3. A Division Bench in W.A.No.2012 of 2012 dated 28.11.2012 [ Malukutty Ponnarassery v. P.Rajan Ponnarassery ], found that the absence of an express recital of an undertaking by the transferee, to make provision of basic necessities and amenities to the transferor, would divest the Tribunal of the authority to declare void a transfer effected by a senior citizen. The said decision is on a totally wrong premise without understanding the object of the enactment brought in specifically to curb a rampant degeneration of values in today's society leading to children refusing to look after their parents after having obtained valuable properties by way of gift or otherwise from their parents, which often is the only source of livelihood and residence for the old and infirm transferor, contends Smt.Parvathi.

4. It is argued that the decision in Shabeen Martin v. Muriel [ 2016 (5) KHC 603 ] held otherwise and so did another Division Bench in Sundhari v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2018 KHC 4655 = 2013 (3) KLT 1082]. The decisions of a learned Single Judge reported in Radhamani v. State of Kerala [ 2016 (1) KHC 9 ] and Manju G.S. v. K.N.Gopi [2020 (1) KHC 10] has looked at the religious and philosophical texts to highlight the traditional value systems; validating an interpretati