Ensure That Senior Citizens Act Provisions Are Not Misused By Children Instigating Their Parents: Bombay HC Cautions Maintenance Tribunals
The Bombay High Court observed that the Maintenance Tribunal established under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must ensure that Section 23(1) of the Act is not misused by the children who are denied a share in the immovable properties by seeking to get gift-deed annulled by filing an application through senior citizens.
The Court further observed that the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act shall not be used as machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed “The provision of Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens. However, unfortunately in many cases, it is observed that such a course of action is taken by the parties. The objective behind enacting Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act is entirely different. The provision operates as an exception to a validly effected transactions of transfer of immovable properties which can be revoked in rare and exceptional circumstances by the Maintenance Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore has to ensure that the provision is not misused by children who are denied share in the immovable properties by seeking to get gift-deed annulled by filing application through senior citizens.”
Senior Advocate G S Godbole appeared for the Petitioner while AGP Uma Palsuledesai appeared for the Respondents.
In the present case, the Respondent-father had filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal for the return of various properties gifted by him to the Petitioner-son and for payment of maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Maintenance Tribunal had declared the gift deeds null and void and had directed the Petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the flats to the Respondent-father. Aggrieved by the Order, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.
The Court observed, “Considering the broad objective behind enacting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, which is to ensure provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to senior citizens, in my view, the Maintenance Tribunal ought to have passed an order in such a manner that Respondent No.2 is provided basic amenities and basic physical needs rather than revocation of the three gift deeds.”
Thus, the Court set aside the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and directed the Petitioner-son to provide the residence in one flat in addition to the payment of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards maintenance. “I am also conscious of the fact that Respondent No.2 has two other sons, who are also under obligation to maintain him. However, the order for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- by the Petitioner is being made in view of exceptional circumstances where total four properties are gifted by Respondent No.2 and his wife in favour of the Petitioner as well as the willingness shown by him to pay monthly maintenance amount to Respondent No.2.”, the Court said.
The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and, hence, disposed of.
Cause Title: Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:5954)
Appearances:
Petitioner/Applicants: Senior Advocate G.S. Godbole, Advocates Ameet Mehta, Avirat Sonawane, Manuj Borkar, Prasad D. Borkar, Sheetal Pandya, Pratiksha Udeshi.
Respondents: AGP Uma Palsuledesai
