Son Has Obligation To Take Care Of Old Mother Even If There Is No Such Obligation Imposed In Gift Deed: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court emphasised that there is an obligation upon a son to take care of his old mother even though there is no such obligation imposed in the Gift Deed.
The Kalaburagi Bench emphasised thus in a writ petition filed by a mother against her son.
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj remarked, “… I am unable to countenance the stand of the son that there is no obligation on the part of the son to take care of his mother during her old age, merely because, there is no such obligation imposed in the Gift Deed. The mother out of frustration has filed said application against her son, since the son is not taking care of her and has categorically averred in the petition that there was fond hope that her son will take care of her during her old age after building a Nursing Home in the property which belonged to the mother.”
The Bench observed that a mother or father if during their lifetime were to transfer a property by way of gift, leaving them without the benefit of the property during their lifetime, a reasonable expectation that their offspring be it either a son or a daughter would take care of their requirements in their old age can be so imputed, when there is a specific pleading in the application filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Advocate Shivanand Patil appeared for the petitioner while AGA Shivakumar R. Tengli and Advocate Ganesh S. Kalburagi appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was the mother of the respondent (son). She claimed to have gifted a property to her respondent son in the belief that he would take care of her basic requirements. She claimed that her son completely showed disinterest in the welfare of the petitioner and her husband (father) and not provided basic amenities and physical needs to her during her old age. Hence, she filed an application but the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Chairman of Senior Citizen Welfare Committee. Challenging the same, she approached the High Court.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was not considered in proper perspective while rejecting the application of the petitioner. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that without a clause in the Gift Deed being present as regards an obligation on the donee to take care of the basic necessities of the donor-parent, there cannot be an obligation so imposed.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “… it is not in dispute that the property was owned by the mother and has been gifted to the son. … Now the contention of the son is that the father was a retired Range Forest Officer and that he has enough resources to take care of himself and his wife. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the above petition, the father has also expired leaving behind only the mother.”
The Court further elucidated that the application/petition under Section 23 of 2007 Act will have to be considered as on the date of the application and so long as the applicant satisfies the requirement of being a senior citizen as on that day, the same would be sufficient and it is not required for the donor or releasor to be a senior citizen on the day on which the Gift or Release is executed.
“The last contention that is urged by Sri.Ganesh S.Kalburgi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the maintenance petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed and therefore, no obligation could be imposed in a petition under Section 23 of the Act on Respondent No.1 to take care of the basic needs and requirements of the mother, he will only take are of medical expenses, this being supported by the contention that the father was a Range Forest officer, who was drawing pension, subsequent to his expiry the mother will be entitled to family pension hence, there is no requirement to maintain the mother”, it also noted.
The Court in view of the above contention observed that such submission would only indicate that the petitioner mother was constrained to move the Court seeking for maintenance which was also contested by the respondent son, thus leaving the petitioner mother without any manner of taking care of her interest.
“Despite enquiry the submission on behalf of respondent No.1 is that he will not take care of the day to day needs of the Petitioner Mother but would only make payment of medical expense, this according to me would not satisfy the requirements of the mother, the son despite receipt of the property is unwilling to take care of the requirements of the aged mother. The submission would also indicate that the father Range Forest Officer has expended monies from his earnings to educate his son to an extent of enabling him to be a doctor, now to contend that the mother can take care of herself from the family pension after the expiry of the father during the pendency of this petition, would only indicate the conduct and attitude of Respondent No.1 Son”, it added.
The Court enunciated that the 2007 Act has been brought into force to provide adequate maintenance and effective welfare to old parents and senior citizens, by making it a legal obligation on adult children and heirs by way of inexpensive and speedy procedures and the aim and objectives of the Act are required to be given due effect.
“In that view of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner having dismissed the application filed by the petitioner only on the ground that there is no obligation under the Gift Deed for respondent No.1 to take care of the petitioner, does not stand the test as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (supra) and as such, it is required to be set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the son to handover the property to the mother within 60 days.
Cause Title- Smt. Shoba v. Dr. Anil P. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:5437)
