(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka. 3678931/2025-C1 dated 04.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal.)

1. Challenging the proceedings dated 04.11.2025 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the son of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent had executed an irrevocable Settlement Deed dated 19.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, alleging that the petitioner had failed to maintain and take care of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent preferred an application before the second respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance to the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, while confirming the order passed by the second respondent, also cancelled the Settlement Deed dated 19.11.2010 executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 first 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 order dated 20.01.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would fairly submit that the registered settlement deed does not contain any specific condition obligating the petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. 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 petitioner to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the fourth respondent. 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 order is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside.

9. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has admitted his obligation to maintain the fourth respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the fourth respondent, on or before the 7th day of every English calendar month. If the petitioner commits default in payment of the monthly maintenance, it is open to the fourth respondent to work out his remedy before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, including seeking enforcement of the maintenance order, in accordance with law.

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