For cancellation of a settlement deed under the Act, express conditions for maintenance must be stated within the document; implied obligations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers :-

(i) issue appropriate writ in the form of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of direction to set aside Ext.P7

(ii) issue appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to account the income in the form of monthly rent obtained to him from leasing out the building comprised in the deed of settlement No.20/11/2010 dated 15.01.2010 of Ernakulam SRO executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3^rd respondent.

(iii) issue appropriate writ order or direction to declare Ext.P1 the deed of settlement No.201/II/2010 dated 15.01.2010 executed by the petitioner favour the 3^rd respondent, covered by Ext.P2 petition to be null and void.

2. The petitioner is a widow and senior citizen aged 84 years. The petitioner herein filed a complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the 1^st respondent and an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner was the absolute owner of an extent of 6.122 cent of the landed property with 2 storied building. As per Settlement Deed No.201/11/2010 of the SRO, Ernakulam, the aforesaid properties were settled in the year 2010 in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is the elder son of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid settlement deed was executed on the understanding that the 3rd respondent would provide for all the needs and requirements of the petitioner throughout her lifetime. But contrary to the assurances and promises made by the 3rd respondent, he completely neglected the petitioner and began to ill- treat and physically assault her. Hence, she was constrained to approach the 1^st respondent tribunal seeking to set aside the deed of settlement executed by the petitioner in favour of the 3^rd respondent.

3. As per Ext.P3 order dated 19.07.2023, the 1^st respondent/tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the deed did not contain any stipulation imposing an obligation on the 3^rd respondent to provide maintenance or amenities to the petitioner during her lifetime. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was also rejected as per Ext.P7 order, thereby upholding the order passed by the 1^st respondent/tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Apex court as well as other High Court including this Court inRadhamani and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2016 (1) KHC 9 ],Shabeen Martin v. Muriel [ 2016 (5) KHC 603 ],Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [ 2022 (7) KHC 637 ],S.Mala v. District Arbitrator & District Collector and others [2025:MHC:706] andLakshmanan v. District Collector and others [2023:KER: 84087 ], and submitted that though there was no specific condition for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs, there was an implied condition that the 3^rd respondent had to take care of the mother and to meet her entire needs.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 3^rd respondent contending that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner at the instance of the younger son with an ulterior motive to extract the property of the petitioner. It was contended that during the lifetime of his father, a will was executed whereby all the properties were bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. On the death of his father on 31.12.2009, the petitioner executed a settlement deed bearing Nos.5036 of 2012 of SRO, Ernakulam and 3274 of 2012 of SRO, Irinjalakuda in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Pursuant