Section 23 requires proof that basic-care conditions were attached to the property transfer.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 14 November 2019 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur, Murshidabad, declaring void a gift deed executed by his father in his favour.

The father had applied under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the petitioner failed to care for him and subjected him to torture.

The Tribunal had earlier ordered monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 and directed its deposit.

The petitioner contended that the deed contained no condition requiring him to maintain his father.

The father died during the revision, and his other legal heirs were substituted.

Whether the gift deed could be declared void under Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act when it did not contain a condition requiring the transferee to provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs.

Whether the Tribunal’s order declaring the deed void could stand in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [(2024) 14 SCC 225].

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 permits a Tribunal to declare a transfer void only where the senior citizen transferred property subject to a condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee then refuses or fails to do so.

In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [(2024) 14 SCC 225], the Supreme Court held that the existence of that condition must be established; it is a sine qua non for Section 23(1) to apply.

The impugned order relied on the petitioner’s failure to pay maintenance and treated the declaration of the gift deed as void as a means of enabling the father to maintain himself from the property.

However, the order did not find that the deed was executed subject to a condition requiring the petitioner to provide maintenance or basic amenities.

Applying Sudesh Chhikara, the Court held that non-payment of maintenance alone could not satisfy Section 23(1) in the absence of the required condition.

The revisional application, CO 157 of 2020, was accordingly disposed of.