HC: Maintenance Act being misused for settling property disputes

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged the misuse of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for settling family property disputes.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi of the High Court observed that the law, meant to ensure the welfare of senior citizens, was being invoked as a tool to reclaim property from one child in favour of others. Justice Sethi asserted that the purpose of enacting the 2007 Act was to ensure proper maintenance of the senior citizens as they were incapable of doing so themselves. A duty was cast upon children to maintain senior citizens. Section 23 of the Act allowed them to revoke property transfers if made on the condition of maintenance, and the children failed to fulfil the obligation.

“Lately, it has been seen that 2007 Act is being used to settle the property disputes between the family. After the transfer of the land in favour of a particular child, the other children of the senior citizen come into picture so as to get the property back on one pretext or the other by using the senior citizen as a means to invoke the jurisdiction under 2007 Act,” Justice Sethi asserted.

The assertions came as Justice Sethi dismissed a senior citizen’s petition. He had challenged an appellate tribunal’s decision to restore property to one of his children. Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench asserted an application was filed by the senior citizen for setting aside the transfer deed. The reason given was that the senior citizen was not being maintained. But condition that the children would have to maintain the senior citizen was not imposed in the transfer deed.

Justice Sethi asserted that the senior citizen had transferred the property to multiple children but sought its return only from one. “Once the claim was not raised against the other children, to whom the property was transferred by the senior citizen, raising the claim only against one shows the intent that it was only with the purpose of getting the land back from him so that the land could be transferred in favour of other children or their family members,” the court observed.