Unsubstantiated findings of fraud in legal orders without evidence violate due process under welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who is the son of the 3^rd respondent herein, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P1 order issued by the 2^nd respondent herein, to the limited extend to striking down certain observations contained in the afore order.

2. The 3^rd respondent herein-the petitioner's father-

submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007, (hereinafter referred to as (‘Act’) essentially contending that he is not being properly looked after. He also contended that the petitioner obtained the property and residential building originally owned by him through ‘fraudulent means’ by the settlement deed at Ext.P4. The 2^nd respondent herein considered the afore application and issued the order at Ext.P1. The 2^nd respondent noticed that the 3^rd respondent-father only wanted the care of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent further recorded the undertaking given by the petitioner herein that he will properly look after his parents. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent issued the order at Ext.P1 directing the petitioner to stay with the 3^rd respondent and his wife (parents of the petitioner) and also that he should look after his parents. A further direction that income from 1¹/ Acres property received by the petitioner should also be

2 given to the 3^rd respondent was made.

3. Though the petitioner has no complaints as regards the final directions issued as above, he is only aggrieved by the observation in the order that the afore referred 1¹/ Acres property got to be transferred in the

name of the petitioner through “fraud”.

4. On a perusal of Ext.P1 order, this Court notices

that the reasons for making such observation has not been

stated anywhere in the order. Though the 2^nd respondent

appears to have heard the petitioner as well as the 3^rd

respondent, the evidence adduced from them are also not been recorded or discussed or appreciated while issuing the order at Ext.P1 containing the afore observation.

5. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances as borne out of Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that there was no requirement for having made the afore observation, especially when ultimately the 3^rd respondent only wanted him to be properly looked after. It is all the more so, when the 2^nd respondent has not even exercised his power under Section 23 of the Act.

Therefore, I allow this writ petition by deleting the finding in Ext.P1 order to the effect that the transfer of property extending to 1¹/ Acres in the name of the

2 petitioner was through “fraudulent means”. Subject to the afore modification, the order at Ext.P1 is sustained.

Sd/-