Family Property Dispute Can't Be Settled Under Maintenance Of Parents And Senior Citizen Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act) cannot be used to settle family property disputes by seeking maintenance or cancellation of property transfers.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismissed a petition filed by a senior citizen under Section 23 of the Act, seeking cancellation of a transfer deed executed in favour of his grandchildren.

Section 23 of the Act, allows a senior citizen to get a property transfer voided if the recipient fails to provide promised care and maintenance.

"It is a clear case where the inter se family property dispute is sought to be settled through invocations of provisions of the Act of 2007, which cannot be the desire object of the Act. This practice needs to be deprecated," the Court observed.

The petitioner, a senior citizen, had transferred land to his grandchildren through a deed. Later, he filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the transfer deed and restoration of the property, alleging that the grandchildren had failed to maintain him as required by the condition in the deed.

The Maintenance Tribunal initially allowed the plea but its order was set aside in appeal, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal rejected the prayer for cancellation of the transfer deed but directed the grandchildren (respondents) to pay ₹24,000 per month as maintenance, jointly. The appellate authority subsequently upheld this decision.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Tribunal erred in granting maintenance when his primary relief was cancellation of the transfer deed.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the transfer was conditional upon maintenance, its breach entitled the petitioner to cancellation under Section 23 of the Act.

Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (two of the grandchildren) supported the petitioner's plea to cancel the transfer deed, contending that they neither possessed the property nor derived any income from it, and hence could not pay maintenance.

Respondent No. 5 (another grand son), however, opposed the petition, alleging that the application was filed at the behest of the other two grandchildren to wrest back the property. He contended that he had been fulfilling his obligations towards the petitioner, including paying maintenance and bearing medical expenses, as evidenced by records of cataract surgeries of the grandparents.

The Court found that the petitioner had failed to present any concrete evidence showing that respondent No. 5 (grandson) had earlier maintained him and had subsequently stopped doing so. The allegations in the application were held to be vague and unsubstantiated.

Significantly, it also also took note of the conduct of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (grandchildren), who had admitted before the Tribunal and the High Court that they did not wish to maintain their grandfather but wanted the transfer deed cancelled.

Consequently, the Court refused to cancel the transfer deed executed in favour of Respondent no.5 (grandson).

Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Jasbir Singh Mahri, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Title: Chattan Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali, District Mohali and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 423

Click here to read order