In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the protective intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by restoring property rights to an elderly mother. The case, Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., revolved around the misuse of a conditional gift deed executed by the appellant, Urmila Dixit, in favor of her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit.
"सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने वरिष्ठ नागरिकों और माता-पिता के भरण-पोषण अधिनियम, 2007 के तहत बुजुर्ग मां उर्मिला दीक्षित की संपत्ति का अधिकार बहाल किया। यह मामला उनके बेटे द्वारा उपहार पत्र की शर्तों का उल्लंघन करने और माता-पिता की देखभाल न करने से जुड़ा था। अदालत ने उपहार पत्र को रद्द करते हुए संपत्ति 28 फरवरी 2025 तक मां को लौटाने का आदेश दिया, वरिष्ठ नागरिकों के अधिकारों और कल्याण को प्राथमिकता दी।"
The dispute arose when the appellant, who had transferred her property to her son through a gift deed in 2019, alleged neglect and abuse. The gift deed, executed on September 7, 2019, was accompanied by a promissory note wherein the son undertook to care for his mother and father. However, the appellant later filed a petition under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, claiming that her son had failed to honor this obligation and had subjected her to emotional and physical distress.
YouTube Analysis:
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Chhatarpur took cognizance of the allegations and declared the gift deed null and void. This decision was upheld by the District Collector and later by a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed these orders, holding that Section 23 of the Act could not apply as the gift deed did not explicitly mention a condition of maintenance.
"This case underscores the protective intent of the Senior Citizens Act, reaffirming that property transfers tied to the care of elderly parents are not mere formalities but binding obligations. The Supreme Court’s judgment ensures that neglect or abuse by the transferee will not be tolerated, emphasizing the law’s role in safeguarding the dignity and welfare of senior citizens."-Adv M.R Mishra
The Supreme Court, setting aside the High Court’s Division Bench order, observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at securing the welfare of senior citizens. It emphasized that the law should be interpreted in a purposive manner to protect vulnerable individuals.
The Court clarified that Section 23(1) of the Act applies when a property transfer is made on the condition of care, even if the condition is not explicitly stated in the gift deed but is evident from surrounding
circumstances, as in the present case.
23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal. (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right. (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-section (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 5
S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.5
“Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”
The judgment also upheld the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act to order the restoration of possession of property. The Court reiterated its earlier rulings that such tribunals are empowered to issue such directives to ensure the protection and dignity of senior citizens.
By quashing the gift deed and restoring the appellant’s property rights, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that property transfers conditioned on care for senior citizens must be respected. If the transferee fails to meet this obligation, the law provides an effective remedy to senior citizens. The Court ordered that possession of the property be returned to Urmila Dixit by February 28, 2025, ensuring a swift and just resolution.
Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and Anr.
14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.
23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation
24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly
Key Points:
The case involved a property dispute between Urmila Dixit, an elderly mother, and her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit.
A gift deed executed in 2019 transferred property to the son, conditional on his care for his parents.
A promissory note executed the same day affirmed the obligation of care but was later disputed by the son.
The mother alleged neglect and abuse, filing a petition under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate declared the gift deed null and void, a decision upheld by the Collector and a Single Judge of the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment, stating the gift deed lacked explicit maintenance conditions.
The Supreme Court reinstated the earlier rulings, interpreting the Act as a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting senior citizens.
The Court emphasized that property transfers tied to maintenance obligations are enforceable, even if implied or supported by external documents.
Tribunals under the Act were held competent to order restoration of possession to senior citizens.
The gift deed was quashed, and the property was ordered to be returned to Urmila Dixit by February 28, 2025..
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of senior citizens in India. It also sends a strong message that legal mechanisms designed for their protection will be interpreted and applied in favor of their welfare.
वरिष्ठ नागरिक अधिनियम के तहत सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बुजुर्ग मां की संपत्ति के अधिकार बहाल किए
भारत के सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एक ऐतिहासिक निर्णय में वरिष्ठ नागरिकों और माता-पिता के भरण-पोषण और कल्याण अधिनियम, 2007 के संरक्षणात्मक उद्देश्य को पुनः स्थापित किया है। इस फैसले में एक बुजुर्ग मां, उर्मिला दीक्षित को उनकी संपत्ति का अधिकार वापस दिलाया गया। यह मामला, उर्मिला दीक्षित बनाम सुनील शरण दीक्षित व अन्य, एक शर्तीय उपहार पत्र (गिफ्ट डीड) के दुरुपयोग के इर्द-गिर्द केंद्रित था, जिसे उर्मिला दीक्षित ने अपने बेटे, सुनील शरण दीक्षित के पक्ष में निष्पादित किया था।
विवाद तब शुरू हुआ जब 2019 में संपत्ति का उपहार पत्र अपने बेटे के नाम करने के बाद, अपीलकर्ता ने उपेक्षा और दुर्व्यवहार का आरोप लगाया। 7 सितंबर, 2019 को तैयार किए गए उपहार पत्र के साथ एक वचन पत्र भी संलग्न था, जिसमें बेटे ने अपने माता-पिता की देखभाल करने का वादा किया था।
हालांकि, अपीलकर्ता ने बाद में अधिनियम की धारा 22 और 23 के तहत एक याचिका दायर की, यह दावा करते हुए कि उनका बेटा इस वचन का सम्मान करने में विफल रहा और उन्हें भावनात्मक और शारीरिक कष्ट दिया।
छतरपुर के उप-विभागीय मजिस्ट्रेट (एसडीएम) ने इन आरोपों पर संज्ञान लिया और उपहार पत्र को अमान्य घोषित कर दिया। इस निर्णय को जिला कलेक्टर और बाद में मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय के एकल न्यायाधीश ने भी बरकरार रखा। हालांकि, उच्च न्यायालय के खंडपीठ ने इन आदेशों को पलटते हुए कहा कि चूंकि उपहार पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से भरण-पोषण की शर्तों का उल्लेख नहीं था, इसलिए धारा 23 लागू नहीं हो सकती।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उच्च न्यायालय के खंडपीठ के आदेश को खारिज करते हुए देखा कि वरिष्ठ नागरिक अधिनियम एक कल्याणकारी कानून है जिसका उद्देश्य वरिष्ठ नागरिकों के कल्याण को सुनिश्चित करना है। न्यायालय ने जोर देकर कहा कि कानून की व्याख्या इस तरह की जानी चाहिए जो कमजोर व्यक्तियों की रक्षा करे।
न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि धारा 23(1) लागू होती है जब संपत्ति का स्थानांतरण भरण-पोषण की शर्त पर किया जाता है, भले ही वह शर्त उपहार पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से न हो लेकिन परिस्थितियों से प्रकट होती हो, जैसा कि इस मामले में हुआ।
फैसले में यह भी माना गया कि अधिनियम के तहत ट्रिब्यूनल को संपत्ति के कब्जे की बहाली का आदेश देने का अधिकार है। न्यायालय ने अपने पिछले निर्णयों को दोहराते हुए कहा कि ऐसे ट्रिब्यूनल वरिष्ठ नागरिकों की सुरक्षा और गरिमा सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इस प्रकार के निर्देश जारी करने के लिए सक्षम हैं।
उपहार पत्र को रद्द करते हुए और अपीलकर्ता की संपत्ति के अधिकार बहाल करते हुए, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह सिद्धांत स्थापित किया कि वरिष्ठ नागरिकों की देखभाल की शर्त पर किए गए संपत्ति स्थानांतरण का सम्मान होना चाहिए। यदि प्राप्तकर्ता इस दायित्व को पूरा करने में विफल रहता है, तो कानून वरिष्ठ नागरिकों के लिए प्रभावी उपाय प्रदान करता है। न्यायालय ने आदेश दिया कि संपत्ति का कब्जा 28 फरवरी, 2025 तक उर्मिला दीक्षित को वापस कर दिया जाए, जिससे एक त्वरित और न्यायपूर्ण समाधान सुनिश्चित हो।
यह निर्णय भारत में वरिष्ठ नागरिकों के अधिकारों और गरिमा की रक्षा के लिए न्यायपालिका की प्रतिबद्धता को रेखांकित करता है। साथ ही यह एक सख्त संदेश देता है कि उनकी सुरक्षा के लिए बनाए गए कानूनी प्रावधानों की व्याख्या और अनुपालन हमेशा उनके हित में किया जाएगा।
Comments