Bombay HC: Senior citizen can not use senior citizens Act to evict daughter in law from residence granted to her as per domestic violence Act

Senior Citizens - Eviction of daughter-in-law - Legality of - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act of 2007) - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) - Present petition filed to challenge orders of Sub Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, which rejected petitioner's application for eviction of his daughter-in-law from "Writ House" - Whether proceedings under Act of 2007 can be used to circumvent a subsisting residence protection order granted under D.V. Act - Held, petitioner's attempt to evict daughter-in-law and minor granddaughters via summary procedure under Act of 2007 was a mala fide effort to bypass judicial protection orders already upheld by High Court - Court observed that petitioner, who owns multiple properties, fabricated a narrative of homelessness to justify eviction - Court held that provisions of Act of 2007 cannot be weaponized to defeat a woman's right to residence in a shared household under D.V. Act - Harmonious construction of both statutes is required, and Act of 2007 cannot be used as a "proxy" to facilitate marital disputes or harass protected parties - Impugned orders of lower authorities were found to be legally sound and justified - Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 11433 of 2023

Decided On: 13.08.2026

Devba Pauladsing Girase Vs. Kavita Himmatsing Girase and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5559/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: What would be effect of lawful revocation of the original gift deed under Senior Citizen Act?

Insofar as the Petitioner’s contention that he has subsequently

transferred the subject property in favour of his wife is concerned, it

is evident that any such transfer is purely derivative of the petitioner’s title. Upon lawful revocation of the original gift deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the very basis of the petitioner’s title stands divested, and consequently, any transfer effected by him would not, prima facie, create an indefeasible or superior right in favour of the transferee. At the same time, since the petitioner’s wife is not a party to the present proceedings, this Court refrains from rendering any conclusive adjudication upon her rights, if any, and leaves it open for her to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law. {Para 26}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12120 OF 2025

Shri. Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre, Vs  Smt. Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre,

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 6th MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:3563

Print Page

Bombay HC: Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Invoked By One Senior Citizen Against Another To Recover Possession Of Premises

After having considered the submissions canvassed by the

learned counsel appearing for parties, it is seen that Respondent

No.2 filed proceedings under the Act for seeking eviction of the

Petitioners from the premises located on first floor of the slum

structure. It is an undoubted position that Respondent No.2

herself resides in the ground floor premises and her real grouse

is that the Petitioners have encroached upon the first floor

premises of the structure. This clearly appears to be proceedings

for recovery of possession of first floor premises. which in my

view cannot be filed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The

proceedings appear to my mind in the nature of suit for recovery

of possession of first floor premises, which could not have been

entertained and decided by the Tribunal. To make the case of

Respondent No.2 worse, Petitioner No.1 is her sister and also a

senior citizen. Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be

invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises

from another senior citizen. Petitioner No.1 is admittedly not

supposed to maintain Respondent No.2. Therefore jurisdiction of

the Tribunal could not have been invoked to seek recovery of

possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners. In

Summary Inquiry conducted by the Tribunal, complicated

questions about right of an occupier to possess first floor

premises cannot be adjudicated. Such adjudication can be

undertaken only before a Civil Court. In my view therefore, the

present case involves gross abuse of jurisdiction of the Tribunal

which is utilized for the purpose of securing possession of first

floor premises from one senior citizen by another senior citizen.

{Para 4}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.882 OF 2024

Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr.  V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 10 MARCH 2025.

Citation:2025:BHC-AS:11709

Print Page

Delhi high court: Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Adjudicate On Claims of Property Ownership

 The Court notes that all that the petitioners have essentially done in those proceedings was to assert a claim of ownership in the property in question. Those issues cannot possibly form subject matter of consideration or adjudication in proceedings under the 2007 Act. Ultimately the authorities administering the said enactment have to bear in mind and accord primacy to the issues of ill treatment of the senior citizens and their right to a

secured existence. The forums constituted under the 2007 Act are neither obliged nor required to undertake a trial with respect to the civil and property rights that may be claimed by the warring factions. Those issues must be ultimately left to be conclusively adjudicated by the competent civil courts. In proceedings initiated under the 2007 Act, the authorities would upon finding that the senior citizens can validly claim an interest in the

property, proceed ahead and evaluate steps that would be warranted to be taken in order to safeguard and secure their interest.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 13825/2022

ANMOL AND ANOTHER Vs SUSHILA .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Dated:  26.09.2022

Print Page

Whether a person who is not an Indian citizen can file petition under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?

The passport of respondent No.2 is produced at Annexure-B. It shows that respondent No.2–Carobina Ferrao Guerin is a British citizen. Her photograph is also affixed to the passport. It is therefore evident that she is not an Indian citizen as the Constitution of India does not provide for dual citizenship. Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Senior Citizen’ and it

reads as follows:

“h. "senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above;”

4. It is evident that one of the essential elements

for being designated a ‘Senior Citizen’ for the purposes of

the Act is the person being an Indian citizen. The passport

at Annexure-B clearly shows that respondent No.2 at whose

instance proceedings has been initiated by the respondent

No.1, is not an Indian citizen. In that view of the matter,

respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate the

proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, same is liable to

be quashed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

 MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO Vs ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION,

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

DATED: 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Whether any affected party other than a senior citizen can file an appeal under the Senior Citizen Act?

  The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the writ petition ought to be entertained by this Court, as an appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) can only be filed by a senior citizen. Ms. Tandon, ld. Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is appealable to the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 22 (3)(4) of the Rules, as amended on 19th December, 2016. Accordingly, she submits that the Petitioner be allowed to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

12. The abovementioned judgments clarify that any `affected person’ can prefer the appeal and not just a senior citizen or parent. The view taken by this Court is by following the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864. The relevant observations are set out below:

“An appeal is envisaged “against the order of the Tribunal”. This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent “aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal”. This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount. Now it can hardly be envisaged that in an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent, there could be a question of absence of stay. Such absence of stay was only envisaged where the appeal is preferred by a children or relative. It is that eventuality the proviso deals with. The proviso is, thus, consistent with what has been set out in Section 15 of the said Act.

We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 5th March, 2021

W.P.(C) 2895/2021, CM APPLs. 8722/2021 & 8723/2021

RAKHI SHARMA Vs THE STATE & ORS.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Dated: MARCH 5, 2021

Print Page

Whether a husband can take divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty if she is preventing him from taking care of his parents?

There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be reflected upon in the face of the

evidences adduced by the parties. Under the “Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act, 2007” children (which includes the son) shall mandatorily be required to maintain parents and

senior citizens. In terms of the definition under Section 2 (d), a parent includes step-mother also.

Under Section 2 (h), senior citizen means any person being a citizen of India who attained the age of

60 years. Under Section 2 (k) “welfare” means provisions for food, health care, recreation centres and

other amenities necessary for senior citizens. A perusal of the provisions of the Act reveals that under

this Act every child including a son is mandatorily required to provide for maintenance/welfare of any

parent.

19. In the evidence of the appellant as PW1 it is stated that PW2 is her widowed step-mother who

has no personal source of income. It is also evident from the evidence that the widowed step-mother

is a senior citizen. Consequently, the agreement dated 06.07.2013, which, as brought out in the

evidence led by the appellant, was compelled to be executed at the behest of the respondent wife

prior to seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner and his family members. The said condition that the

appellant and the respondent are required to live separately away from the family members of the

appellant and that none of the family members including the step-mother of the appellant will be

permitted to visit them, being present in the agreement is also not disputed by the respondent in the

evidence led before the court below. It is also categorically stated by the respondent that because of

non-compliance of the said agreement, another criminal case being Digboi P.S. Case No.230/2013,

under Sections 471/420 IPC has been filed against the appellant and his family members.

20. Under the circumstances, it is seen that the Family Court completely ignored this fact brought

out during the evidence that the respondent compelled and prevented the appellant from performing

his statutory duties towards his aged mother under the provisions of the 2007 Act. Such evidence is

sufficient to be construed as an act of cruelty as the non-compliance/non-adherence to the provisions of the 2007 Act has criminal consequences leading to punishment or imprisonment as well as fine.

There was completely no reference and discussion in the impugned judgment rendered by the Family

Court although the same is sufficiently evident from the evidence adduced before the Family Court.

21. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of the Family Court

be overturned in view of the discussions rendered above and which we accordingly do.

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Case No. : Mat.App. 20/2019

SRI BHASKAR DAS  Vs  SMTI. RENU DAS

BEFORE

 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA

 MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Date of judgment : 19.06.2020

(Soumitra Saikia, J.)

Print Page

Whether Section 23 of senior citizen Act is attracted If there was no Condition Of Providing Maintenance In Transfer Deed?

This Court in Radhamani and others v. State of

Kerala (2016 (1) KHC 9) held that there is no requirement

under law that there should be a written stipulation in the

deed to the effect that the transferee would maintain the

transferor. It is appropriate to refer the relevant

paragraphs in the above judgment which read thus :

“11. It is to be noted that the special scheme in

terms of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could declare

certain transfer as void, taking note of the fact

that by taking advantage of the emotionally

dependent senior citizens, relatives grab the

property on the pretext of providing emotional

support. Therefore, legislature thought such

transaction could be declared as void as the

conduct leading to transaction was based on malice

or fraud. Therefore,condition referred in Section

23 has to be understood based on the conduct of

the transferee and not with reference to the

specific stipulation in the deed of transfer.”

Thus this Court is of the view that it is not necessary

that there should be a specific recital or stipulation as a

condition in the deed of transfer itself. This condition

mentioned in Section 23 is only referable as a conduct of

the transferee, prior to and after execution of the deed of

transfer.

14. In the light of the judgment in Radhamani's case,

the scope of enquiry in a matter related under Section 23,

must be related and confined to the circumstances under

which the document was executed. In the light of

Radhamani’s judgment, the Tribunal has to examine the

circumstances under which the deed was executed. It is also

necessary to find out whether senior citizen expected that

the transferee would provide amenities and physical needs to

the transferer at the time of transfer. There may not be

any written document in this regard. Normally this has to

be concluded from human conduct and nature of relationship

and circumstances in which such deed was executed. Strict

pleadings or evidence cannot be insisted in such

proceedings. It is to be noted that law only contemplates

breach on the part of the transferee in providing amenities

and physical needs to the transferor. It does not stipulate

that the condition of providing maintenance should be part

of such transfer. If love and affection was the

circumstances for executing such deed, any failure on the

part of the transferee to provide amenities and physical

needs to the transferor would attract the grounds for

revocation under Section 23. Therefore, any emotional

detachment or creation of an atmosphere as opposed to the

one demanded by a senior citizen would be sufficient to

attract Section 23.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

WP(C).No.14802 OF 2019(A)

G.S.MANJU Vs  K.N.GOPI @ GOPINATHAN PILLAI

 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

Dated:10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

Print Page

Whether maintenance tribunal can grant eviction of son from property of senior citizen even if no maintenance is claimed by him?

38. There is nothing in the language or purported intent of Section 23 of the Act 2007 to indicate that the Tribunal has the power to declare a transfer of property void if and only if the senior citizen is seeking maintenance under the Act from the opposite party. 
39. In Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court passed an eviction order under the Act, 2007 where not only no maintenance had been sought by the senior citizen, but in fact the senior citizen had volunteered to pay Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to his son.

40. Consequently, Section 4 and Section 23 are separate and distinct remedies and the claim for maintenance is not a condition precedent for passing an eviction order under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: October 03, 2018 

LPA 205/2017, CM No. 11669/2017

SUNNY PAUL VsSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI 

 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

Print Page

Whether mother can evict her son from her house as per provisions of MWPSC Act 2007 without filing civil suit?

 In my view, Section 4 cannot be read in isolation but has to be read with Section 23 and also Sections 2(b), 2(d) and 2(f) of the said Act. The respondent no. 1 mother cannot be restrained from recovering exclusive possession from her son or his other family members for the purpose of generating income from the said premises or to lead a normal life. In my view, if the respondent no. 1 mother who is 73 years old and is a senior citizen, in this situation, is asked to file a civil suit for recovery of possession of the property from her son and his other family members who are not maintaining her but are creating nuisance and causing physical hurt to her, the whole purpose and objects of the said Act would be frustrated.

32. In my view, since under Section 23 of the said Act, a senior citizen is entitled to apply for a declaration of gift or transfer of his/her property by any other means given subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to such senior citizen and such child or grandchild refuses to provide such amenities and physical needs, such senior citizen can apply for declaration of such transaction to be void, such senior citizen can even apply for recovery of possession from her child or grandchild in the event of the child refusing to maintain such senior citizen and parents or does not comply with the obligations extending to the needs of senior citizen or such parents to enable such senior citizen or parents to lead a normal life. Such parents and senior citizen can certainly apply for recovery of vacant possession of the property and for a relief restraining such child or grandchild or his other family members who are claiming through such child from entering upon the property of such senior citizen or parents. In my view, there is thus no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal could not have passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and his family members from the tenement owned by the respondent no. 1 under the provisions of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 10611 of 2018

Decided On: 26.06.2018

 Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs.  Lilabai Shivaji Mane and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 681,AIR 2018 Bom 229

Print Page

Whether Senior citizens are entitled to institute application seeking eviction of son/ daughter or other legal heir?

 In Sachin v. Jhabbu Lal, whilst disposing off RSA No. 136/2016 and CM No. 19123/2016, another Single Judge of this Court succinctly observed as follows:—

“Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.”

17. The subject Rules amended on 19.12.2016 provide as follows:—

“(3)(1) Procedure for eviction from property/residential building of Senior Citizen/Parents -

(i) A senior citizen may make an application before the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate(DM) of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his self acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrates for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application.

(iii) The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall immediately submit its report to the Deputy Commissioner/DM for final orders within 21 days from the date of receipt of the complaint/application.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/DM during summary proceedings for the protection of senior citizen parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of the said Act 2007. If the Deputy Commissioner/DM is of opinion that any son or daughter or legal heir of a senior citizen/parents is not maintaining the senior citizen and ill treating him and yet is occupying the self acquired property of the senior citizen, and that they should be evicted, the Deputy Commissioner/DM shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them/him/her.

(v) The notice shall-

(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and

(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the property/premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issued thereof.

(2) Eviction Order from property/residential building of Senior Citizens/Parent.-

(i) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance to the notice and any evidence he/she may produce in support of the same and after giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Deputy Commissioner/DM is satisfied that the eviction order needs to be made, the Deputy Commissioner/DM may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the property/residential building shall be vacated;

(3) Enforcement of Orders,

(i) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days from the date of its issue, the Deputy Commissioner/DM or any other officer duly authorized by the Deputy Commissioner/DM in this behalf may evict that person from the premises in question and take possession;

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall have powers to enforce the eviction orders through Police and the Dy. Commissioner of Police concerned shall be bound to carry out execution of the eviction order.

(iii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM will further handover the property/premises in question to the concerned Senior Citizen.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall forward monthly report of such cases to the Social Welfare Department by 7th of the following month.”

18. A plain reading of the above extracted Rules clearly reflect that a senior citizen is entitled to institute an application seeking eviction of his son, daughter or other legal heir from his self-acquired property on the ground of ill-treatment and non-maintenance.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma, JJ.)

Shadab Khairi & Anr. v.The State & Ors. .…. 

LPA 783/2017, CAV 1058/2017, 

Decided on February 22, 2018

Print Page

Whether sons can be evicted from father's house for not paying maintenance amount to parents?

The petitioners- who are the sons of respondent no.3- have filed the
present petition impugning the order dated 10.12.2015 (hereafter „the
impugned order‟) passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Central District
constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereafter „the Act‟). By the impugned order, the
Tribunal has, inter alia, directed the petitioners to vacate the respective
portions occupied by them on the third floor of the property bearing
No.3617, Katra Deena Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of the impugned order.
2. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the principal
ground that the same is without jurisdiction; according to the petitioners,
the Maintenance Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order of
eviction and its jurisdiction is only limited to awarding maintenance to
senior citizens.
The written statement filed by the petitioners before the Maintenance
Tribunal to oppose the complaint filed by respondent no.3 also indicates
that the petitioners had filed FIRs alleging that respondent no.3 had
attempted to outrage the modesty of their wives, this clearly indicates that
the petitioners and respondent no.3 cannot live together and this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Maintenance
Tribunal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2017
W.P.(C) 866/2016 and CM Nos. 23434/2017, 17173/2017
SHADAB KHAIRI AND ANR 
V
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Print Page

When maintenance tribunal should declare transfer of property void?

The Petitioner is placing implicit reliance on the MOU

which does not have any probative value taking into consideration the

circumstances, in which it was executed.  The Act of 2007 confers on

the   maintenance   tribunal   express   power   to   declare   a   transfer   of

property void at the option of the transferor.  Under section 23 of the

said Act, it is to be presumed  that the intent of the legislature is to

empower the maintenance tribunal to pass effective and meaningful

orders including   consequential directions to give effect to the said

order.  The Act empowers  the tribunal to grant speedy  consequential

relief.  In the present case, although the interim relief was vacated,

the   Petitioner   and   Respondent   No.3   has   continued   to   harass   the

parents   and   therefore,   it   is   necessary   to   evict   the   Petitioner   and

Respondent No. 3 from the said bungalow i.e. i.e.  Girnar Bungalow,

Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi, District Pune. 

43 It is in these circumstances that the Writ Petition being

sans merits stands dismissed on the following terms:

(i) The Order passed by the Learned Sub­Divisional Officer,

Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   and   confirmed   by   the   learned

Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016, Pune is

hereby  maintained.

(ii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   to   pay   Rs.

2,000/­ each to the parents/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1st

August, 2017.  

(iii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   are   further

directed     to   vacate   the   premises   of   bungalow   i.e.     Girnar

Bungalow, Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi,

District Pune within two weeks from the date of  passing of this

order.  

(iv) In the eventuality  that the Petitioner and Respondent No.

3  do not vacate the premises of above bungalow voluntarily the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to seek   police aid to

execute the present order.  

(v) The Petitioner to pay cost   of Rs. 25,000/­ towards the

cost of litigation to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly within 2

weeks from today.   The amount to be deposited before the

Tribunal, Pune constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which shall not be

included in the maintenance amount.

(vi) The Tribunal at Pune is hereby directed to implement and

execute   the   Order   dated   20/2/2016   passed   by   the   Sub

Divisional   Officer,   Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   within   two

weeks from today.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1791  OF 2016

Shri Santosh Surendra Patil.  V Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & ors. ..

­­­

CORAM :  SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J

     

 PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 23, 2017

Print Page

Whether father can be denied maintenance under Maintenance of parents Act on ground that he is getting pension?

In the present
application, it has been specifically stated that wife of
applicant/respondent no.3 is having Arthritis in hands and other joints of
the body. She is unable to cook food for herself and the husband. Thus,
maintenance awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the parents is too
meager. A pensioner requires additional amount to supplement his day to
day living. Old parents have to maintain standard of life which they were
having when one of them was in service. A father who has given his life
long savings to settle the son cannot be denied fruits of earning by the
son, merely because he is getting pension.
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12314/2013
Deepak Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Dated: 20th April, 2016.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Citation:AIR 2016 Raj 188

Print Page

Whether tribunal under maintenance of parents and senior citizens Act can make any transfer of property void?

Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 specifically state that 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. Section 23(2) further states that 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.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court is of the view that the Act of 2007 is not without teeth. To provide
speedy redressal of grievance, the Act vests powers in the Tribunal to
make any transfer of the property void. The petitioner as per his own
averment in the application is unemployed. Nothing has been stated
regarding source of income of the petitioner. On 22.1.1999, an
agreement to sell and other papers were executed by Vijay Laxmi
Mathur. The petitioner and his wife were not possessed of the funds to
pay the sale consideration, noted in the agreement to sell. The
respondent no.3 Hanuman Prasad Sharma has specifically stated that he
had purchased the flat for his wife Pushpa Devi Sharma, and possession
was handed over to him and the original agreement to sell and other
original documents like allotment letters, letter of possession are with
Hanuman Prasad Sharma. Thus, it is discernible that the father in old age
being not able to move here and there, had asked the seller to execute
power of attorney in favour of his son.
In the present case, attorney has cheated the person who
had provided funds for execution of the agreement to sell. Scope of
Section 23 of the Act of 2007 cannot be restricted as the Act of 2007 is
beneficial legislation. The scope under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 can
be enlarged and the Tribunal can hold an inquiry as to who had provided
funds for purchase of flat by way of agreement to sell on 22.1.1999, what
was the age of the petitioner on 22.1.1999 and when he was married,
what were his resources, what were the resources of his wife to purchase
the flat. In case, the funds were provided by the father and the mother
in the year 1999, out of love and affection, the petitioner and his wife
cannot become ungreatful to the parents. By extending widest
interpretation to Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Act of 2007, this
Court is of the view that the Tribunal should have held an inquiry
compelling the petitioner and his wife to return sale consideration of the
flat to the parents so that they can survive with dignity.

REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12314/2013
Deepak Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Dated: 20th April, 2016.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Citation:AIR 2016 Raj 188

Print Page

Whether Maintenance Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act Can Be Used as tool in Property Disputes Between Siblings?

 The Act is one enacted to ensure the proper protection and

maintenance of senior citizens. It cannot be allowed to be used as a

tool in property disputes among siblings. The substantial right of the 3rd

respondent which is sought to be enforced by recourse to the Act is the

right to be maintained and protected by her children. In view of the

specific contention of the petitioner that she had never refused to do

so and that Exhibit      P1 is an agreement recorded without her

understanding the contents of the same, I am of the opinion that

  
interests of justice will be met by directing that the petitioner shall look

after her mother.

      In the result, Exhibit    P1 is set aside. It is directed that the

petitioner shall also have the responsibility of looking after her mother.

If the 3rd respondent agrees to go and reside with the petitioner, she

shall be looked after well and expenses shall be met by the petitioner.

If the 3rd respondent is not desirous of going and staying with the

petitioner, the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five

thousand) to the 3rd respondent instead of Rs.500/-per month as

agreed in Exhibit P1 on or before 10th day of every month commencing

from November, 2016 towards the personal expenses of the mother. If

any default is committed by the petitioner in paying maintenance as

directed above, the 3rd respondent will be free to approach the Tribunal

afresh.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

          MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

                WP(C).No. 9108 of 2014 (K)
               

          MAVILA SATHI,
Vs

       STATE OF KERALA
         

Print Page

Whether children are liable to provide 'welfare measure' to live-in-partner of their mother?

  The above argument though appears to be meritorious,


going by the nature of provisions in the Senior Citizens Act regarding


maintenance, these arguments would have a relevance if there is an


order to pay maintenance.        Further, the order passed by the


Maintenance Tribunal would show that it has passed the order in


terms of Section 2(k) of the Senior Citizens Act for providing "welfare


measures" rather than invoking provision for maintenance under


Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act. The welfare measures can be


imposed against any person, based on the accepted relationship


between the parties involving mutual obligations for a considerable


time though such persons may not have legal obligation to pay the


maintenance.    The maintenance, of course, can be ordered only


against the persons mentioned as 'children' or 'relative' as defined



under the Senior Citizens Act. Though, there is no special provision


for providing "welfare" to the senior citizen, the scheme of Senior


Citizens Act itself gives a room for the Tribunal to protect the


"welfare" of a senior citizen. It is open for the Tribunal to impose a


liability for providing "welfare measures" on whom the Tribunal


deems fit that it can be imposed, based on the accepted relationship


between the parties. Otherwise, the very purpose of the Act would


be defeated.    Thus, it has to be concluded that the direction as


ordered in the impugned order is only a direction to provide "welfare


measures" and not as maintenance and such measures can be


imposed against any persons, whom the Tribunal deems fit in


circumstances and for sufficient reasons, though, such persons would


not come within the ambit of 'children' or 'relative' as defined under


the Senior Citizens Act.    In this case, the facts disclosed clearly


establish that the mother of the petitioners and the petitioners had


an accepted relationship involving mutual obligations with the senior


citizen. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition must


fail and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                FRIDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

                                   WP(C).No. 4981 of 2015 (W)
                                      -

         REJU, AGED 38, S/O.SEKHARAN,
      Vs      

        1. THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, 

        2. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 

        3. SASIDHARAN, AGED 50, 


      
                

Print Page

Whether application U/S 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is tenable against Daughter-in-law?

 In view of the above, an application under Section 22 of the Act would be maintainable against any person irrespective of the fact whether the respondent in the application falls within the category of persons as defined in any of the definitions as provided for in Section 2 of the Act or otherwise. The only rider is that the applicant should be a senior citizen as defined in Section 2(h) i.e. a citizen of India, who has attained the age of 60 years or above and further as defined in Section 2 (f), he/she has a property of any kind whether movable or immovable or self acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights and interest in such property. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the application preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3 against the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law, would not be maintainable under Section 22 of the Act.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balbir Kaur vs Presiding Officer-Cum-Sdm And ... on 29 June, 2015

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15477 OF 2014 (O&M)  

Citation;AIR 2016 P&H 4

Print Page

Foreign citizens living in India are also covered under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that foreign citizens living in India are also covered under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a legislation enacted to protect the rights of senior citizens in the country.

The high court bench of justice HS Sidhu ruled that under the Act, a person who was a parent would be entitled to the benefits of the Act, which were conferred on parents, irrespective of his or her age or nationality.

“The requirement of being a citizen of India is only a part of the definition of a senior citizen, a father or mother, whatever his or her nationality, would be a parent,” the high court bench said.

Print Page

Right of daughter in law under Domestic violence Act Vs right of father in law under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

I am in agreement with the aforesaid view.
Accordingly, it is to be held that the house in question
which is owned by respondent No. 2 (father-in-law of  petitioner )
is not a “shared household” in which the petitioner has any right of
residence which can be enforced under the 2005 Act.
This being the position, no question of the 2007 Act
being used at cross purposes with the 2005 Act arises in this case.
Thus, the judgment in Harmohinder Singh's case is not
relevant. In that case ejectment of the divorced wife and sons was 
being sought by the husband under the 2007 Act regarding which he
had also filed a suit. It is settled that even a divorced wife is to be
protected against her husband by a provision for maintenance which
includes a right of residence. Such a right could undeniably be
enforced under the 2005 Act. It was in this context that the Hon'ble
Court observed that the 2007 Act cannot be used at cross purposes
with and to annihilate the rights available under the 2005 Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.18009 of 2015 (O&M)
 Date of decision: January 25, 2016
Hamina Kang V District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh and others 
Coram: MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)455 P&H

Print Page