(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in Na,Ka.No.1560/2023/A2 dated 27.11.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent confirmed by Pa.Mu.No.1888565/2024/C1 dated 30.11.2024 by the 1st respondent and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to rehold the enquiry.)

1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the first and second respondents, dated 27.11.2023 and 30.11.2024 respectively, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the grandmother of the third respondent. The petitioner's husband had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the third respondent, believing that the third respondent would maintain and take care of the petitioner during her lifetime. However, subsequently, the third respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the settlement deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was further submitted that the second respondent, by order dated 27.11.2023, rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the settlement deed did not contain any condition obligating the third respondent to provide maintenance or basic amenities to the petitioner. The second respondent also observed that the third respondent had expressed his willingness to maintain the petitioner, but the petitioner had refused to receive the maintenance amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 30.11.2024, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Challenging the concurrent findings of the respondents 1 and 2, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have jurisdiction under Section 23 only in respect of transfers by way of gift or settlement, where the transfer is subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. In the present case, the document in question is a settlement deed without any such conditional clause. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are wholly inapplicable and the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or direct cancellation of the settlement deed.

4. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Sasikala v. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, the learned counsel submitted that, it was categorically held that in the absence of a condition incorporated in the deed, the power under Section 23(1) cannot be exercised and further held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Therefore, the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed does not contain any specific condition obligating the third respondent to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the petitioner. In the absence of such a condition incorporated in the document of transfer, the provisions of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, would not be attracted.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 225, has held that the deeming fiction under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can be invoked only when the transfer is made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and the transferee fails to fulfil such condition. Unless such a condition is expressly incorporated in the document of transfer, the jurisdiction under Section 23 cannot be exercised for declaring the transfer void. The Supreme Court further held that the authorities constituted under the Act cannot assume jurisdiction to annul a transfer in the absence of the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 23.

8. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the document in question is a registered settlement deed and there is no recital therein imposing any obligation upon the third respondent to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the petitioner. Therefore, the essential requirement for invoking Section 23 of the Act is absent. Consequently, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to direct cancellation of the registered settlement deed by invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.

9. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent has admitted his obligation to maintain the petitioner. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned orders, this Court directs the third respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition before the second respondent till the date of this order. The arrears accrued thereon shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The third respondent shall thereafter pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month towards maintenance to the sixth respondent on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the arrears or the monthly maintenance, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including by seeking enforcement of this order, in accordance with law.

10. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.