Recently, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on a man who dragged his aged mother through years of property and maintenance litigation after obtaining relinquishment deeds in his favour, refusing to interfere with orders directing him to pay monthly maintenance and restoring the senior citizen’s rights over the disputed property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Calling the conduct a clear abuse of the legal process, the Court imposed ₹50,000 costs on the son and remarked that instead of fulfilling his “natural and statutory duties,” he had subjected his mother to “protracted and multi-layered litigation” during her “twilight years.”
Brief facts:
The case arose from a property dispute between an aged mother and her son concerning ancestral and family properties transferred through registered relinquishment deeds executed in the son’s favour. According to the mother, the transfers were obtained by taking advantage of her trust and were followed by neglect, denial of basic care, and failure to maintain her despite the son acquiring substantial property rights. The dispute further intensified after a portion of the property was transferred by the son to his wife during separate matrimonial proceedings.
The matter eventually reached the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, where the mother sought cancellation of the relinquishment deeds under Section 23 of the Act along with monthly maintenance. The Tribunal allowed her plea, revoked the deeds, and directed the son to pay maintenance. After the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings, the son approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as well as the cancellation of the property transfers and maintenance order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel registered relinquishment deeds, particularly when a civil suit concerning the same dispute was already pending before a competent court. The Counsel contended that the deeds were executed voluntarily and did not contain any express condition requiring maintenance of the mother, and therefore, Section 23 of the Act could not be invoked. The Petitioner contend while referring to the cases Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Anr. and Veena Singh vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector and anr., that, in the absence of a specific maintenance clause, revocation of the transfers was impermissible. The petitioner further claimed that he had been caring for his mother and argued that the maintenance amount of ₹10,000 was excessive.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the petitioner had neglected his statutory and moral obligations towards his aged mother despite obtaining valuable property rights from her. The Counsel argued that the Tribunal and Appellate Authority had concurrently recorded findings regarding neglect, failure to provide basic amenities, and abandonment, thereby fully attracting Section 23 of the Act. The Respondent further contended that the Act was enacted as a beneficial social welfare legislation intended to provide speedy and effective remedies to senior citizens, and that prolonged civil litigation could not be used to deprive elderly parents of immediate statutory protection.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh observed that “The record demonstrates that the Petitioner, rather than fulfilling his natural and statutory duties, as such, has chosen to drag an aged/mother, a senior citizen, through protracted and multi-layered litigation, effectively depleting her resources and peace of mind in her twilight years. Such conduct further disentitles the Petitioner from seeking any relief, much less the equitable and discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court held that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with the social welfare object of the legislation. The Bench observed that whenever a senior citizen transfers property to a child or relative, there exists an inherent expectation that the transferee would provide “basic amenities and physical needs” to the transferor. The Court clarified that failure to fulfil such obligations activates the statutory “deeming fiction” under Section 23, under which the transfer can be treated as having been obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Stressing the protective nature of the statute, the Court observed that property rights cannot supersede the dignity, survival, and welfare of elderly parents.
The Court further observed that the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same property dispute could not prevent the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Bench emphasised that the legislation was enacted to provide a simple, inexpensive and speedy mechanism for protecting senior citizens and that procedural technicalities cannot be used to frustrate urgent statutory remedies. The Court held that beneficial legislation cannot be interpreted in a narrow or pedantic manner where the substantive reality demonstrates neglect and abandonment. The Court also clarified that subsequent payment of maintenance would not erase the original breach that attracted Section 23.
The Court further clarified that the son’s subsequent transfer of the property in favour of his wife could not create a superior right since such transfer was merely derivative of his own title, which itself stood extinguished upon lawful revocation of the relinquishment deeds.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the orders passed by the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal and the Appellate Authority directing payment of ₹10,000 monthly maintenance and cancellation of the relinquishment deeds. The Court additionally imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000 upon the Petitioner, directing payment within four weeks, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Case Title: Shri. Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre Vs. Smt. Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 12120 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Prashant Bhavake,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Suryajeet P. Chavan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
