Wife’s Senior Uncle: Karnataka HC Quashes ₹10,000 Monthly Maintenance Order Against Couple, Says He Is Not Their “Relative” Under Senior Citizens Act

The petitioners purchased 35 guntas of land from respondent No. 3, the second petitioner’s senior uncle, under a registered sale deed dated 1 March 2021 for acknowledged consideration of ₹1,30,000

Respondent No. 3 alleged that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, based on an assurance that the petitioners would care for him, and sought relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Assistant Commissioner rejected his application to annul the deed.

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held that annulment required recourse to the civil court but directed the petitioners to pay respondent No. 3 maintenance of ₹10,000 per month under Section 9(2) of the Act

The petitioners challenged that maintenance direction by writ petition

Section 2(g) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 defines “relative” for the purposes of the Act; the Court held that the relationship between the second petitioner and respondent No. 3 did not fall within that definition

Section 9(2), which the Deputy Commissioner relied on to order maintenance, could not support an order against the petitioners where no statutory maintenance obligation existed between them and respondent No. 3

The Court also noted that respondent No. 3’s claim that the sale deed was procured by fraud or misrepresentation could be pursued in competent legal proceedings

The Court treated the sale deed as a registered conveyance for which consideration had been acknowledged, and noted that respondent No. 3 did not challenge it until 2023, despite its execution in 2021

It agreed that the Deputy Commissioner could not annul the deed and that the alleged fraud or misrepresentation remained a matter for the civil court

Although the Deputy Commissioner correctly declined to annul the deed, the Court held that the separate maintenance order was also unsustainable: respondent No. 3 was the second petitioner’s senior uncle, not a “parent” or “relative” within the Act, and the petitioners therefore had no statutory obligation to maintain him under Section 9(2)

It clarified that the order did not prevent respondent No. 3 from initiating other legal proceedings concerning his allegation that the sale deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation