A pending property dispute between heirs does not absolve a grandson of his legal obligation to maintain his grandmother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially when the grandson has inherited property from the grandmother's spouse.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 10.05.2023 and 25.10.2024, passed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Succinctly stated, the respondent No.2, a senior citizen, instituted an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking directions against the petitioner (her grandson) to provide her with adequate maintenance. The application averred that the husband of the respondent No.2 was the owner of House No.778 and Shop Nos.778/1 and 778/2, situated at Manimajra, Chandigarh. Upon the demise of her husband, the said property devolved equally upon their son Gurjit Singh (petitioner’s father) and daughter Kuldip Kaur (petitioner’s aunt). Unfortunately, her son (petitioner’s father) also passed away, following which his share of the property, comprising both residential and commercial components, was inherited by the petitioner, who has since been enjoying the benefits therefrom. It was further averred that the petitioner bears no respect for the respondent No.2, has paid no regard to her welfare or well-being, and instead abandoned her to fend for herself on the streets, after which she has been residing with her daughter Kuldip Kaur. On these averments, the respondent No.2 sought maintenance from the petitioner to sustain her livelihood during the twilight years of her life.

3. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 10.05.2023, directing the petitioner to pay ₹5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 as maintenance. Deriving grievance therefrom, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2024. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to forthwith comply with the order of the Maintenance Tribunal and to clear all arrears of maintenance within 30 days.

4. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a property dispute is pending between the petitioner and his aunt Kuldip Kaur, in respect whereof a civil suit has already been instituted. It is argued that the proceedings under the Act of 2007 constitute sponsored litigation instigated by the petitioner’s aunt Kuldip Kaur, who seeks to resolve the property dispute by invoking the said provisions, thereby amounting to misuse of the enactment. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s aunt procured the transfer of the entire agricultural land in her favour from the senior citizen and subsequently alienated it to a third party. Consequently, the petitioner stands absolved of any obligation to maintain the senior citizen, as she remains under the influence of her daughter and possesses sufficient means to maintain herself.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the house-cum-shops (supra) situated at Manimajra, Chandigarh, and that the respondent No.2 is residing with her daughter Kuldip Kaur, and has no independent means of sustenance, except for a meagre old-age pension of ₹2,500/- per month.

7. The petitioner is a person of means, and in the considered view of this Court, he cannot shirk his obligation to maintain his grandmother. The existence of an inter se property dispute between the petitioner and his aunt does not absolve him of such obligation, particularly when he has inherited property