Gift to neglected daughter-in-law cannot be cancelled under Senior Citizens Act without a maintenance condition, Karnataka High Court holds

The petitioner, daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 3, married his son, D. Gopi, on 20 June 2010 and lived with them in the disputed property.

She alleged matrimonial harassment and neglect by her husband, including failure to provide for her and their minor son.

Respondent No. 3 first executed a Will dated 12 June 2019 and subsequently a registered gift deed dated 14 October 2020 in favour of the petitioner and her minor son, allegedly to secure their maintenance and future after the husband failed to support them.

Respondent No. 3 later applied under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the gift was conditional upon the petitioner maintaining him and that she had failed to provide him basic amenities and physical needs.

The petitioner disputed the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that Respondent No. 3 was below sixty years of age when the gift and application were made, that the gift deed contained no maintenance condition, and that a daughter-in-law was not a “child” or “relative” under the Act.

The Tribunal allowed the application and cancelled the gift deed by order dated 15 December 2023, leading to the present writ petition.

1. Whether the transferor under Section 23 must have been a senior citizen on the date of execution of the transfer, or whether attaining sixty years by the date of application or consideration is sufficient

2. Whether the Tribunal was required to decide the petitioner’s objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction as preliminary issues

3. Whether Section 23 can be invoked without an express or implied condition requiring the transferee to provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs

4. Whether Respondent No. 3 could maintain proceedings under Section 23 against the petitioner, his daughter-in-law, having regard to the statutory definitions of “children,” “parent,” “relative” and “senior citizen”

5. Whether the legislative scheme and history of the Act restrict the remedy under Section 23 to senior citizens, excluding parents below sixty irrespective of their status as parents

6. Whether Respondent No. 3 satisfied the statutory prerequisites for invoking Section 23 and whether the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in cancelling the gift deed

7. Whether the Tribunal’s order cancelling the gift deed was legally sustainable and what relief should follow

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applies where a senior citizen transfers property by gift or otherwise subject to a condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee subsequently refuses or fails to do so; both the maintenance condition and its breach are essential ingredients

Under Section 2(h), a senior citizen is a citizen of India who has attained sixty years or above, but the Court held that the transferor need not have been sixty on the date of transfer; the relevant enquiry is ordinarily made with reference to the application, and a marginal shortfall may be cured if the applicant attains sixty before consideration

Sections 2(a), 2(d) and 2(g) define “children,” “parent” and “relative”; a daughter-in-law is not a “child,” and the extended category of “relative” applies only to a childless senior citizen

The Court relied on Smt. Shoba v. Dr. Anil P. Kumar, W.P. No. 202832/2019, for the proposition that the donor need not be a senior citizen on the date of execution, and on Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077, for the principle that the Act is beneficial welfare legislation requiring liberal construction to advance the protection of elderly persons

The Court also considered the legislative history of Section 2(h), including deletion of the proposed words “and includes parent whether or not a senior citizen,” and held that Section 23 is directed to senior citizens, not every parent irrespective of age

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Respondent No. 3 was disqualified because he was fifty-seven when the gift was executed and fifty-nine when the application was filed.

Although the application was filed before he turned sixty, he attained sixty before the Tribunal decided the matter; treating the marginal age deficit as fatal would defeat the beneficial purpose of the Act and result in the futile dismissal and immediate refiling of the proceedings

The Court held that the age objection therefore did not oust the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or require separate preliminary determination

However, Section 23 could operate only if the gift was made subject to a condition requiring the transferee to maintain the transferor.

The gift deed contained no such condition, and the surrounding circumstances showed that Respondent No. 3 transferred the property to secure the petitioner’s and minor grandson’s maintenance because his son was neglecting them.

The transaction was therefore the opposite of a gift conditional upon the petitioner maintaining Respondent No. 3

Although the petitioner’s status as daughter-in-law was not, by itself, an absolute bar because Section 23 refers generally to a “transferee,” Respondent No. 3’s living son was the person falling within the statutory category of “child” primarily responsible for his maintenance.

More importantly, the gift lacked the statutory maintenance condition and was made for the petitioner’s protection

The Tribunal had cancelled the gift without recording a finding that such a condition existed, thereby exercising Section 23 power without its legal foundation

Nevertheless, the gift deed was outside Section 23 because it contained no express or implied condition requiring the petitioner to maintain Respondent No. 3 and was executed to secure the petitioner’s and minor child’s maintenance

The writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal’s order dated 15 December 2023 in Case No. MSC/CR/96/2022 was quashed, and the registered gift deed dated 14 October 2020 was restored to full legal effect

Any independent maintenance remedy available to Respondent No. 3 against his son was left open

In view of the allegation that the petitioner had been married at approximately fifteen years of age, the Court directed the competent authorities under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 to verify the allegation and take action in accordance with law, without expressing any finding on its truth