A settlement deed cannot be cancelled under Section 23 absent a specific maintenance condition.

The petitioner’s late father executed a settlement deed dated 23 August 2010 in the petitioner’s favour.

The father later sought relief under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the transfer was conditional on the petitioner providing him basic amenities and physical needs, which the petitioner had failed to provide.

The Revenue Divisional Officer directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of ₹2,000 but declined to cancel the deed.

On the father’s appeal, the District Collector cancelled it.

The petitioner challenged that cancellation by writ petition.

The petitioner’s mother, the eighth respondent, was also before the Court; the petitioner undertook to pay her monthly maintenance of ₹2,000.

Whether the settlement deed could be cancelled under Section 23(1) when it contained no condition requiring the petitioner to maintain his father or provide him basic amenities and physical needs.

Whether the monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner’s mother should be enhanced.

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits a transfer to be declared void where the transfer was subject to a condition that the transferee would provide the senior citizen’s basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to do so.

Relying on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, the Court stated that the statutory conditions must be satisfied and that an obligation to maintain cannot be presumed merely from the relationship between the parties.

It also relied on the Full Bench decision in Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer, which held that Section 23 cannot be invoked where the gift deed contains no such term or condition.

The Court adopted the reasoning in Karuppan v. District Magistrate-cum-District Collector that the required condition cannot be presumed or implied.

The settlement deed contained no condition requiring the petitioner to provide his father with basic amenities or physical needs.

Although the father’s Section 23 petition alleged that such a condition existed, the Court held that the statutory requirement had not been established.

Applying the cited authorities, it concluded that the District Collector could not cancel the deed on the basis of an unexpressed or presumed maintenance obligation.

Separately, given the value of the property conveyed to the petitioner, the Court considered the ₹2,000 monthly maintenance undertaking to the petitioner’s mother inadequate and enhanced it.

The petitioner was directed to pay the eighth respondent ₹10,000 per month for her lifetime, effective from 1 July 2026.

If the petitioner defaults, the Revenue Divisional Officer may attach the property conveyed under the settlement deed and recover arrears in accordance with law.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.