The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the single-judge bench's decision to revoke the transfer of property from a senior citizen to her son, noting that children are expected to take good care of their ageing parents, which is "not only a value-based principle but a bounden duty as mandated by law."
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the cancellation of property transfer from a senior citizen to her son by a single judge bench, observing that the children are expected to look after their elderly parents properly “which is not only a value-based principle but a bounden duty as mandated by law”.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was passed by the Parliament in order to preserve the respect and dignity of an elderly person. This was noted by the high court panel of justices AG Masih and Ashok Kumar Verma. The state was quite concerned about the difficulties that the elderly were facing. Along with physical risks, they deal with emotional and psychological difficulties. The court also stated, "Due to these frailties, they are entirely reliant."
The situation included a 76-year-old widow whose spouse had left her with one property and one shop to assure her survival. The injunction claims that in 2015, her son started abusing her and dishonestly putting this property in his name.
The widow requested conciliation proceedings from the panchayat two or three times, but there was no success. As a result, she went to the Tohana sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) in Fatehabad, who according to the 2007 statute serves as the maintenance tribunal. She had begged for protection of her life, liberty, and dignity as well as for the restitution of the house and shop's title to her.
The SDM in 2019 instructed the son to give his mother back ownership of the home and to pay her 2,000 per month in support. A cancellation of the transfer deed from 2015 was also mandated.
The son appealed this decision to the Fatehabad appellate tribunal, which reversed the findings but ordered the widow to receive support and be let keep her home.
The son appealed this ruling to the Fatehabad appellate tribunal, which reversed the findings but ordered that the widow be given maintenance and let to live in her home. The widow appealed this decision before a single judge bench, who ordered that the SDM order be upheld. The son had objected to the arrangement of the single bench before this one. The SDM's order has now been affirmed by the high court.
The high court noted that Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2007 specifically states that if children do not care for their parents after receiving a property transfer in their favour, the property transfer will be regarded to have been made through fraud, coercion, or other unethical means, under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the tribunal.
"It is frequently observed that youngsters would abandon property they receive from their parents." The bench stated, "In such a circumstance, the 2007 law is an enabling lifeline for such old-aged parents and senior persons who are not cared for by their children and become greatly neglected."
Comments