IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 12, 2025 SIMARJIT KAUR @ SIMRANJEET KAUR -PETITIONER V/S THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Chanakya Batta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 07.01.2025, whereby the Maintenance Tribunal, while declining the petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of the transfer deed in question, directed respondent No.3 (the petitioner’s brother and beneficiary of the transfer deed) to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of ₹ 10,000/- to the petitioner, to be paid by the 5^th day of each succeeding month according to the English calendar. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the order dated 12.08.2025, whereby the Appellate Tribunal dismissed her appeal against the order dated 07.01.2025.

2. Concisely and compendiously, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 4, 5, and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act of 2007”) before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking cancellation of the transfer deed dated 10.10.2016, executed by her in favour of her real brother/respondent No.3, in respect of land measuring 18 Kanals and 10 Marlas. The petitioner alleged that following execution of the transfer deed, respondent No. 3 refused to maintain her and subjected her to neglect, resulting in her facing hardship due to lack of funds for basic sustenance.

3. The respondent, however, expressed willingness to provide care and maintenance to the petitioner, and accordingly, the Maintenance Tribunal, by its order dated 07.01.2025, instead of cancelling the transfer deed, directed respondent No. 3 to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of ₹ 10,000/-. Since the petitioner’s application did not reap the desired fruits, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, however, she remained unsuccessful there too, as her appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching the yearned for relief, made submissions alike the one engraved in the application filed before the Maintenance Tribunal. It is contended that the Act of 2007 is a benevolent legislation intended to protect senior citizens and ensure their basic needs are met. Post execution of the transfer deed out of love and affection, the failure of respondent No.3 to provide maintenance to the petitioner, sufficient instances whereof were quoted in the application, invoked the mischief of Section 23 of the Act, warranting cancellation of the transfer deed rather than a mere direction for payment of maintenance.

5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In order to adjudicate the dispute at hand, it is deemed imperative to begin with examining Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.