***

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 Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, to be paid by the 5th 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 Rs.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.

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.”

6. The Act of 2007 was enacted to uphold the traditional norms of Indian Society emphasizing the duty of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens. Accordingly, its provisions must be interpreted to achieve the legislative intent, while ensuring that the Act is not misused for the resolution of ordinary civil or property disputes within families.

7. A perusal of Section 23 reveals that where a senior citizen has, after commencement of the Act, transferred his property by way of gift or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide for his basic amenities and physical needs, and such transferee fails or refuses to do so, the Maintenance Tribunal is empowered to declare such transfer to have been made by way of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

8. In the present case, although it is undisputed that the transfer deed in question contained no recital or stipulation making the transfer conditional upon respondent No.3 maintaining or providing for the petitioner, it is deemed imperative, at this juncture, to capture a concise and compendious version of the grounds recorded by the petitioner in her application seeking cancellation of the transfer deed, for ascertaining as to whether there are sufficient pleadings and evidence adduced by the petitioner to establish that the transfer deed was executed with the condition stipulated in Section 23 of the Act of 2007. The relevant paragraphs of the application are extracted hereunder:-

“3. That due to the death of petitioner's husband and son, petitioner is residing in the house of her father at village Budh Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Moga. The petitioner executed transfer deed under challenge in favour of her brother i.e. respondent on his assurance that he will take care of the petitioner in her old age and he and his family will serve her till the last breath of her life and will take care of all the needs of the petitioner in her old age.

4. That for the last more than two years, respondent has changed his colour and has started torturing the petitioner and is also threatening her to leave the residential house. It is mentioned here that petitioner in her old age has to cook her own meals in a room of the house which is owned by her father and in which she is currently residing. The petitioner being of old age and sick and especially due to fact that the petitioner is alone in the word and has to bear the threats and torturous behaviour of the respondent. The petitioner transferred her land in favour of respondent in good faith and after believing the undertaking of the respondent to the effect that he/respondent will take care of the respondent in her old age and will provide all the amenities of life i.e. food, shelter, medicine etc. but in vain. Earlier, petitioner had the hope that the respondent will change his behaviour with the passage of time but in vain. It is mentioned here that respondent threats the petitioner that if she/petitioner ever attempted to communication with any relative or co-villagers regarding her grievance towards respondent then she will be eliminated and as such being an old lady, the petitioner did not ever informed regarding the torturous behaviour of the respondent towards her to any relative or co-villager.

5. That now the torturous behaviour of the respondent has touched sky high and it is not now mentally and physical in possible for the petitioner to bear the torturous behaviour of the respondent any more. Petitioner has so many times requested the respondent to mend her ways but in vain. It is mentioned here that the petitioner being an old age has to face starvation as she possess her own funds to run her kitchen and the respondent do not provide her any money or grocery etc. So, forced by the circumstances, the petitioner has to file the present petition.”

9. What emerges from perusal of the record is that mere assertions have been made that the property was transferred by the petitioner to respondent No.3 on an express/implied condition of maintenance, but no efforts were made to establish such assertion by leading cogent evidence, thus requiring the Maintenance Tribunal to invoke the provisions of Section 23 for breach of condition by the transferee. Although an application under Section 23 may, in certain circumstances, be maintainable even in the absence of an express condition, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not justify the invocation of Section 23 of the Act.

10. Moreover, the order dated 07.01.2025 reflects that respondent No. 3 is providing care and maintenance to the petitioner, including engaging a domestic helper at his own expense. The relevant observations, as enclosed in the order dated 07.01.2025, are extracted hereinafter:-

“...The respondent, Baldev Singh, while arguing in person, admitted that Smt. Simarjeet Kaur, daughter of Bachan Singh, is indeed his real sister and that she had transferred the land measuring 18 Kanals 10 Marlas situated at Budh Singh Wala in his favour vide the aforementioned Will dated 10-10-2016. However, he contended that the petitioner's claim for cancellation of the transfer is completely false and baseless. The respondent asserted that he is fully providing for the care, maintenance, and all needs of the petitioner and bears all her expenses. During the hearing, the respondent produced some photographs on the Court record, claiming that he has provided a separate portion for the petitioner within his house, comprising a room, bathroom, and kitchen. He further stated that he bears all expenses for the petitioner's medicine, food, clothing, etc. The respondent added that the petitioner is accustomed to keeping domestic help and that he pays the salary of a female domestic helper currently employed by her. Besides this, he provides for her medical assistance and personally chauffeurs her in his car for weddings, social functions, or visits to relatives as and when required. The respondent finally submitted that he has no discord or dispute with the petitioner and is committed to providing for her care, maintenance, and needs for her lifetime. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

I have carefully considered the facts on record and have attentively heard the arguments advanced by both sides. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner transferred the ownership of the land in favour of the respondent, her brother. However, from the arguments and evidence led by the respondent, it is also clear that he has expressed his commitment to providing for the petitioner's needs. The petitioner's grievance primarily rests on the respondent's alleged failure to provide care and maintenance, which has been raised as the ground for seeking cancellation of the transfer. Conversely, the facts and evidence presented by the respondent cannot be out-rightly dismissed to conclude that he is unwilling to care for the petitioner. Consequently, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that even if the transfer of ownership made by the petitioner is cancelled, the petitioner herself, being a senior citizen woman, would be unable to manage and maintain the property...”

11. In summa, this Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

12. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of this writ petition shall not absolve respondent No.3 of his obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Maintenance Tribunal.

Petition dismissed.

********