The Bombay High Court has expressed concerns over the misuse of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act by children who were denied a share in immovable properties owned by senior citizens.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne recently observed that provisions of the Act were being used as a piece of machinery for settling property disputes between heirs of senior citizens.

Unfortunately in many cases, such a course of action was taken by the parties, noted the High Court, while directing the Tribunals under the Act to ensure that the provision was not misused by children who were denied a share in the immovable properties by seeking to get gift-deed annulled by filing an application through senior citizens.

Justice Marne passed the order on a petition challenging a Senior Citizen Tribunal order of October 2022 that nullified gift deeds executed in favour of petitioner Nitin Gupta by his father.

The petitioner claimed that his father had executed gift deeds in his favour with respect to three flats in 2019 and 2020.

In February 2022, his father applied to the Tribunal seeking return of various properties gifted by him to the petitioner and payment of maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month.

The application filed by the father contended that the petitioner got four gift deeds executed and thereafter, he ill-treated his father by removing servants and confining him to one room.

The application further stated that in 2021, the father left Mumbai to reside with his other son in Surat and that son purportedly had neither any source of income nor any property left with him.

The Tribunal declared the deed as null and void. It also directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the three flats to the father.

Gupta challenged the Tribunal order before the High Court, alleging that his father had moved the Tribunal at the behest of his sibling, the other son in Surat, who was purportedly interested in the said properties.

The High Court remarked that Section 23(1) (revocation transfer of immovable properties in certain circumstances) of the Senior Citizens Act ought not be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens.

It observed that the provision operated as an exception to validly effected transactions of transfer of immovable properties, which could be revoked in rare and exceptional circumstances by the Maintenance Tribunal.

Setting aside the Tribunal order, the single-judge Bench directed the petitioner to provide residence to his father in one of the flats and pay him Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate GS Godbole, along with Advocates Manuj Borkar and Prasad Borkar, while the orther son was represented by Advocates Ameet Mehta, Sheetal Pandya and Pratiksha Udeshi briefed by Solicis Lex. Additional government pleader Uma Palsuledesai appeared for the State.

The Telangana High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking directions for the construction of an old age home in a district.

The petition has been registered on the basis of communication dated 11.10.2023 addressed to the Court.

In the aforesaid communication, a direction has been sought to the authorities to establish old age homes in all the districts in the State, as required under Section 19 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The PIL further seeks directions to improve the existing old age homes in the State and to provide basic facilities to the inmates of old age homes, including food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti admitted the PIL and issued notice to the respondents.

The Bombay High Court directed the state government to place on record the details regarding the State Council, District Committees/District Co-ordination-cum Monitoring Committees on implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V. Marne heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for a direction to respondent (State of Maharashtra) to issue detailed guidelines for licensing, registration and management of the old age homes across the State. Further directions are sought in respect of the scheme framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2010 .

The prayers regarding old age homes are traceable to Section 19 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, which reads thus: –

“19. (1) The State Government may establish and maintain such number of oldage homes at accessible places, as it may deem necessary, in a phased manner, beginning with at least one in each district to accommodate in such homes a minimum of one hundred fifty senior citizens who are indigent.

(2) The State Government may, prescribe a scheme for management of oldage homes, including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them which are necessary for medical care and means of entertainment to the inhabitants of such homes.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, “indigent” means any senior citizen who is not having sufficient means, as determined by the State Government, from time to time, to maintain himself.”

The Act of 2007 provides for various measures for taking care and protection of senior citizens. The Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance of the State of Maharashtra has notified Rules of 2010 in exercise of power conferred by Section 32 of the Act of 2007. Chapter VII of the Rules deals with establishment of State Council and District Committees of Senior Citizens.

Chapter IV of the Rules of 2010 provides for scheme for management of old age homes established under Section 19 of the Act of 2007. Rules 21 and 22 stipulate that the State Council and District Committees would advise the State Government on effective implementation of the Act and to perform such other functions as the State Government may notify.

Thus, the Bench observed that the tissues which the petitioner has raised would also be the concern of the State Council. Therefore, the details regarding the State Council, District Committees/District Co-ordination-cumMonitoring Committees needs to be placed on record by way of an affidavit.

“The State shall place on record the details as to when the State Council of Senior Citizens, as contemplated under Rule 21, was established, the names and number of members as per Rule 21(2) (iii) and (iv), the details of the meetings held of the said Council from its establishment as Rule 21(3) mandates that the State Council shall meet at least once in 6 (six) months. The decisions taken/minutes of the said meetings also be placed on record”, the Bench directed.

Matter is listed on 26 July 2023 for further hearing.

The Allahabad High Court recently held that orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act cannot be issued in cases for handing over the possession of a particular part of the undivided ancestral property and the authorities also do not have the right to divide the property.

The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Jaiprakash Tiwari.

The application/ complaint dated March 13, 2021 submitted before the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, under Section 22(1)(3) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 21(2)(i) Rule 21(1) Sub-Rule 2 and 3 of Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.

In this petition, the petitioner has alleged that in the village Abadi, there is an ancestral house which was owned by his father and is now occupied by him and his two brothers who all are residing in the same house and each brother has a share of 14 x 20 sq. ft. in the said house. But his brothers are trying to encroach over his share.

The Petitioner in the complaint dated March 13, 2021 has prayed for protection of his life and property and to give him possession over that portion of the property which has been encroached by his brothers.

According to the Petitioner, since no action has been taken by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj on his aforesaid complaint dated March 13, 2021, therefore the petitioner has filed the Petition praying for the aforenoted reliefs.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that life and property of the Petitioner be protected and he be put in possession of that portion of the property which falls in his share.

Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted on the basis of instructions that the said property was inspected by the authorities and on June 17, 2021 action under section 107 /116 Cr.P.C. was taken so as to ensure that breach of law and order does not take place.

He further submitted that the disputed property is an ancestral one in which the Petitioner and his two brothers have undivided shares and partition has not yet taken place.

“We have carefully considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and we find that an action under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. has already been taken by the State‐ respondents”, the Court observed.

The Court held that,

So far as the contention of the Petitioner that he be put in possession in a particular portion of the disputed property is concerned, we find that such a matter shall not be covered by the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act, 2007 read with Rule 21(2)(i) Rule 21(1) Sub-Rule 2 and 3 of the U.P. Rules, 2014. Such a dispute is pure and simple a dispute of share and possession of the disputed property which can be decided in a partition suit.

“For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any good reason to grant relief as sought by the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Act, 2007 does not confer power to the Authorities to decide partition dispute and share of parties in an immovable property. Admittedly, the disputed property is an ancestral property in which the parties have an undivided share.

Also Read: Allahabad HC allows second bail application of man accused under NDPS Act provisions

Thus, the Petitioner cannot ask for mandamus to the Authority under the Act, 2007 to put him in possession in a particular portion of the disputed property. Therefore, no mandamus as prayed, can be issued,” the Court ordered.

“With the aforesaid observations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner, the Petition is dismissed leaving it open for the Petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law,” the Court said.