IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : July 09, 2025 Nirmala Devi .. Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Rewari and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the orders dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) and 16.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘2007 Act’), whereby the property which was transferred by respondent No.3-senior citizen in favour of her son i.e. the husband of the petitioner, who has unfortunately died and the property was inherited by the petitioner, has been directed to be reverted back to the senior citizen.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that without adjudicating as to whether, the requirement of Section 23 of the 2007 Act are fulfilled, the orders have been passed by the authorities envisaged under

2007 Act against the daughter-in-law for reversion of the property back to the respondent No.3-senior citizen after the death of the son of the respondent No.3-senior citizen i.e. husband of the petitioner herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the transferee of the property but has inherited the property after the death of the transferee hence, no claim can be raised against the daughter- in-law especially when the definition of the children as envisaged under 2007 Act against whom the claim can be raised, does not include the daughter-in-law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the similar issue as raised in in the present petition has already been decided by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2022 titled as Charanjit Kaur vs. District Magistrate and Chairman of Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar and others, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, it has been held that after the death of the transferee, when the property has been transferred in favour of the daughter-in-law, the senior citizen cannot raise the claim against the said property under 2007 Act for retaining the property hence, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders passed by the authorities concerned in favour of the respondent No.3-senior citizen be set aside being contrary to the provisions of the 2007 Act as well as settled principle of law as settled in Charanjit Kaur’s case (supra)

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-senior citizen submits that though it is a conceded position that the property was transferred by the senior citizen in the name of her son i.e. husband of the petitioner and the son has already expired and the property has been inherited by the petitioner but once the property initially belonged to the respondent No.3-senior citizen, after the death of her son who was the transferee, the property has to return back to the senior citizen and the reversion of the said property by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act vide impugned orders is perfectly valid and legal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-senior citizen further submits that though, the definition of the children does not include daughter-in-law but the daughter-in-law should be made part of the said definition so as to get the property back after the death of the son who was the transferee in the present case qua the property which was initially owned by the respondent No.3-senior citizen.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. The claim has been raised by the respondent No.3-senior citizen under Section 23 of the 2007 Act. The said provision is as under:-

23. Transfer of property to be void in