Karnataka HC Restores Widow’s Property, Says Her Late Husband’s Aunt Was Not Her “Relative” Under Senior Citizens Act

Smt. Puttamma executed a gift deed dated 23 July 2008 in favour of her son, Venkatesh, the petitioner’s husband.

Venkatesh died in 2012, and Puttamma died in 2021.

Thereafter, Puttamma’s sister, respondent No. 3, applied under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking annulment of the gift deed on the ground that the petitioner was not maintaining her.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and cancelled the deed.

The petitioner challenged that order, alleging, among other things, that she had not received notice.

After the order, respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 4.

The petitioner sought to have the Assistant Commissioner’s order and its consequential entries set aside.

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, concerns specified transfers of property by a senior citizen subject to a condition that the transferee provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs; where that condition is not met, the transfer may be declared void in accordance with the provision.

The Court also applied the Act’s definition of “relative” under Section 2(g), and relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 12878 of 2026, dated 20 August 2026, in concluding that respondent No. 3’s application was not maintainable.

The judgment does not set out the reasoning or full ratio of that coordinate Bench decision.

The Court found that respondent No. 3 was Puttamma’s sister and that the petitioner was Venkatesh’s wife.

It held that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 did not fall within the definition of “relative” under Section 2(g).

It further observed that Puttamma remained alive for years after Venkatesh’s death and had not herself raised a claim concerning maintenance or the gift deed.

The Assistant Commissioner had failed to ascertain the parties’ relationship and examine the property’s title documents before cancelling the deed.

The Court therefore held the order to be contrary to the 2007 Act and unsustainable; it also relied on the cited coordinate Bench decision.

The consequential entry in the Sub-Registrar’s register was also quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to seek restoration of the registered entries and the prior khatha.

The Court held that respondent No. 4 acquired no right, title or interest in the property through the sale deed executed by respondent No. 3 after the impugned order.