Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have the power to order eviction and transfer possession to protect senior citizens and uphold the Act's objectives. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others. Case? 

• The appellant, Urmila Dixit, purchased property on 23rd January 1968, and later executed a Gift Deed on 7th September 2019, in favor of her son (the respondent). 
• The Gift Deed contained a condition stating that the donee (son) maintains the donor (mother) and makes necessary provisions for her peaceful life. 
• Simultaneously, a promissory note was executed wherein the son undertook to care for the mother until the end of her life, with a stipulation that failure to fulfill this obligation would entitle the mother to reclaim the gifted property. 
• On 24th December 2020, the mother filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging mistreatment and seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed. 
• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur, declared the Gift Deed null and void, which was upheld by the Collector upon appeal by the son. 
• The son then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed by the Single Judge who affirmed the lower authorities' orders. 
• Subsequently, the son filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which reversed the Single Judge's decision. 
• The Division Bench held that Section 23 was a standalone provision and found no condition for maintenance in the Gift Deed itself. 
• The mother then approached the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench's decision. 
• No criminal offence was specifically charged against the son; the case centered on civil provisions regarding property transfer under the senior citizen welfare legislation.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation that must receive a liberal construction in consonance with its objectives to provide effective remedies for senior citizens. 
• The Court clarified that Tribunals under the Act have the implicit power to order eviction and transfer possession if necessary and expedient to ensure protection of senior citizens, as previously established in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. 
• Rejecting the Division Bench's view, the Court held that Section 23 is not a standalone provision but is intrinsically linked with the Act's purpose of empowering senior citizens to secure their rights when property is transferred with maintenance conditions. 
• The Court found both requirements under Section 23 were met: the property was transferred subject to maintenance conditions, and these conditions were not fulfilled by the son. 
• The judgment emphasized that a strict interpretation of beneficial legislation would render the legislative intent otiose, particularly in cases concerning senior citizens' welfare. 
• No criminal offence was established in this case; rather, the legal question centered on the proper interpretation and application of civil provisions under the senior citizens welfare legislation. 
• The Court ordered restoration of property possession to the appellant mother by 28th February 2025. 

What is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? 

About 

• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens in India. The Act defines a "senior citizen" as any person who is a citizen of India and has attained the age of 60 years or above.

Key Provisions 

• Maintenance Obligation (Sections 4-18): Children have a legal obligation to maintain their parents, and relatives have an obligation to maintain childless senior citizens. 
• Establishment of Tribunals (Section 7): State governments must establish Maintenance Tribunals to adjudicate maintenance claims. 
• Old Age Homes (Section 19): State governments are required to establish old age homes in each district. 
• Medical Support (Section 20): Provisions for medical care for senior citizens. 
• Protection of Life and Property (Sections 21-23): Measures to protect senior citizens' lives and property.

Section 22: Authorities for Implementation 

• Section 22 deals with the authorities responsible for implementing the Act's provisions: 
• Powers to District Magistrate:  
  • The State Government may confer powers and duties on District Magistrates to ensure proper implementation of the Act. 
  • District Magistrates can delegate these powers to subordinate officers within specified local limits. 
• Comprehensive Action Plan:  
  • State Governments are required to prescribe a comprehensive action plan specifically for protecting the life and property of senior citizens. 
• This section essentially creates the administrative framework for enforcement of the Act, placing responsibility on District Magistrates as the primary implementation authorities at the district level. 

Section 23: Protection of Property Rights 

• Section 23 is particularly significant as it provides safeguards against property transfers that may leave senior citizens vulnerable: 
• Void Transfers (Section 23(1)):  
  • If a senior citizen transfers property (by gift or otherwise) with the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs. 
  • And if the transferee fails to provide these amenities and needs. 
  • Then the property transfer can be declared void by the Tribunal. 
  • Such transfers are deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. 
• Right to Maintenance from Estate (Section 23(2)):  
  • If a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance from an estate. 
  • And if that estate is transferred to another person. 
  • The right to receive maintenance can be enforced against the transferee if:  
    • The transferee had notice of this right, OR 
    • The transfer was gratuitous (without consideration). 
  • The right cannot be enforced against a transferee who paid consideration and had no notice of the right. 
• Third-Party Action (Section 23(3)):  
  • If a senior citizen is incapable of enforcing these rights. 
  • Authorized organizations can take action on behalf of the senior citizen. 
• Section 23 essentially provides a mechanism to invalidate property transfers where the senior citizen is left without care after transferring property and protects their right to maintenance despite property transfers.