Legal provisions under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act require express conditions in deeds for basic needs; without such, a cancellation cannot be granted.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by an 87-year-old senior citizen, seeking to set aside Exts.P3 and P4 orders and also to cancel the settlement deed dated 11.03.2013 of the Sub Registrar Office, Westhill, and to restore the ownership of the property to the petitioner under Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 (for short, “the Act”).

2. The petitioner, alleging that the third respondent/son failed to provide her basic needs and left her in distress, approached the Maintenance Tribunal by filing Ext.P2 petition, seeking for cancellation of the settlement deed and for restoration of her property. The tribunal, after considering the issue, dismissed Ext.P2 petition as per Ext.P3 order, holding that the dispute is of civil nature. It was also stated therein that the petitioner/mother is free to reside in her house until death. Though Ext.P3 order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4 order, upholding the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. The third respondent/son, on receipt of notice, appeared before this Court and filed objection to the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner/mother has six children including the respondent/son, who are living separately with their families. According to the respondent/son, the entire marriage expenses of his younger sister, including the purchase of gold ornaments, were borne by him; and thereafter, his father voluntarily offered to assign the properties in his favour, which was discussed and settled with the petitioner/mother as well. On the death of his father in June 2004, as requested by the petitioner/mother, he paid an amount of ₹3,00,000/- to his brother, Sri.Sambhudas, as evidenced by Ext.R3(2) agreement, and a further sum of ₹4,00,000/- to the petitioner/mother. Thereafter, the petitioner/mother executed Settlement Deed No. 609/1/2013 dated 11.03.2013 before the Sub Registrar Office, Westhill, by which the scheduled property was transferred to the third respondent/son. It is also stated in the objection that, though the respondent/son had approached the petitioner/mother requesting her to stay with him, she replied that if she stayed with him, her other children would not come to see her. According to him, he never collected the pension amount from the petitioner/mother; and the petitioner/mother was forcefully dragged by his sister to grab the scheduled property and her pension illegally. It is contended that the matter is purely a civil dispute, and the tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition; and therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

4. Heard Sri.Brijesh N.B., learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Vijayakumari, learned counsel for the third respondent;

and the learned Government Pleader.

5. When the case came up for hearing on 11.08.2025, this Court referred the matter for mediation before the Kerala High Court Mediation Centre, however, the mediator filed a report, stating that the matter could not be settled. The main prayer of the petitioner/mother is for the cancellation of the Settlement Deed No.609/1/2013 dated 11.03.2013 of the SRO, Westhill. The tribunal, after consideration of the issue, directed the parties to approach the civil court for cancellation of the settlement deed. The third respondent/son produced the settlement deed as Ext.R3(1) along with the objection. A perus