Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by a senior citizen under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal’s (‘Appellate Tribunal’) order remanding the matter pertaining to cancellation of transfer deed executed in favor of the respondents, his grandchildren, to the Maintenance Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and that of the Tribunal’s rejecting his prayer for cancellation of the said transfer deed, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., held that this case was an example where the family property dispute was sought to be settled by invocations of provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior Citizens Act’) which was contrary to its desired object.
Considering the importance of petitioner’s welfare, the Court reverted to the share of Respondent 3 and 4 to the petitioner and affirmed Respondent 5’s obligation to pay the maintenance. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner had filed an application before the Tribunal where he had sought cancellation of transfer deed and restoration of land in its original form with him. The transfer deed had a specific condition that the transfer was subject to the transferee providing basic amenities to the petitioner. The Tribunal allowed the petitioner’s application.
Respondent 5 challenged it by filing a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal remanding back the matter to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month which was to be paid equally by all three respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner appealed under Section 16 of the Senior Citizens Act, which was dismissed, leading the petitioner to the High Court.
The petitioner contended that after the transfer, the respondent stopped looking after him, and since he was unable to afford his medicines, he had to invoke Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that since the possession of the land in question was with Respondent 5, they were voluntarily not paying for the maintenance. Per contra, Respondent 5 argued that he was continuously paying his part of maintenance and the present petition was filed on command of Respondents 3 and 4 as they wanted to settle the family property dispute under the garb of senior citizen.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that there was no dispute on the fact that there was a specific recital in the transfer deed that transfer was subject to the condition of maintaining the senior citizen. However, the Court pointed that though there were vague assertion that the respondents failed to look after the petitioner but not even a single instance was pointed out as to how, and in which manner Respondent 5 had now refused to maintain him who was earlier maintaining him.
Considering the stand of Respondent 3 and 4 that they did not wish to maintain the petitioner, the Court opined that it was a clear case where the family property dispute was sought to be settled through invocations of the Senior Citizens Act’s provisions which would be against the Act’s desired object. The Court stated that this practice should be deprecated.
Thus, the Court held that no interference was warranted to cancel the transfer deed executed in Respondent 5’s favor. Further, the Court set aside the transfer in favor of Respondents 3 and 4 and ordered the revert of land in dispute. The Court directed Respondent 5 to continue to comply with the Tribunal’s award and monthly payment of Rs 8,000 to the petitioner as maintenance. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
[Chattan Singh v. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, CWP No. 12664 of 2023(O&M), decided on 13-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate and Dharminder S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab
For the Respondent: Jasbir Singh Mahri, Advocate, Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate and Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
