The court held that the order cannot be sustained as the respondent had not attained the age of senior citizenship as defined by law.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 1^st respondent, whereby Ext.P3 document executed by the petitioner’s father (2^nd respondent) in his favour has been cancelled with reference to the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’)

2. I have heard Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The only issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether an order in the nature of Ext.P6 can be issued under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.

4. A reference to Ext.P3 document would show that when the same was executed on 03.12.2021, the 2^nd respondent herein was only aged 55 years. This is also borne out of Ext.P4 – Aadhar card of the 2^nd respondent, as per which he was born in the year 1966. Therefore, with reference to the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the Act, the 2^nd respondent can be considered as senior citizen only when he attains the age of 60 years.

That being so, when the 2^nd respondent filed the application before the 1^st respondent and when the impugned order at Ext.P6 was issued, the 2^nd respondent had not yet attained the age of 60 years. In such circumstances, the impugned order at Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition would stand allowed, and Ext.P6 order is set aside.

Sd/-