Senior Citizens Act: Condition of maintenance need not be expressed in writing, says Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, a condition of maintenance need not necessarily be expressed in writing while transferring the properties. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said this while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter challenging the tribunal’s order cancelling a gift deed executed by the mother.

“The Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect senior citizens from destitution and neglect. To insist upon a formal recital in every case would render the statutory protection illusory and defeat the legislative intent,” Justice Magadum said.

The mother from Mysuru, a senior citizen and retired government school teacher, had resided with her daughter for three and a half years owing to marital disputes. As advised by her children, the mother transferred the properties to the daughter and the son by way of gift, with an understanding that the rental income would be utilized for the benefit of the mother. The mother moved the tribunal (Assistant Commissioner) after the children started collecting rent for themselves while the former lived in a rented house.

The tribunal allowed the application and cancelled the transfer which was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. The daughter moved the high court arguing that there was no express stipulation in the gift deed obligating her to maintain the mother.

The court cited the co-ordinate bench’s order in the Venkataiah case, interpreting the Apex Court judgement in the Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi case. The High Court had held that the condition of maintenance can be inferred from the relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances, and subsequent conduct, and need not necessarily be expressed in writing.

Justice Magadum observed that the mother is now compelled to reside in a rented accommodation, bereft of both shelter in her own property and the benefit of income arising therefrom. “The statute, being a beneficial and remedial legislation, cannot be rendered otiose by insisting upon a formal or express recital of such obligation in the deed of transfer. The absence of an explicit covenant is inconsequential when the conduct of the transferees and the resultant destitution of the transferor vividly establish a breach of the foundational expectation underlying the transaction,” Justice Magadum said.

The court further said, “The petitioner (daughter), having been the beneficiary of the gift, cannot shirk her obligation viz., legal, moral, and social, to ensure the well-being of her mother. The beneficent provisions of the Act must be given a purposive interpretation to advance its object. This Court is therefore of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities.”