1. Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.M.Yadagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr.S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

               “…..to issue an Order Direction or Writ more particularly a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not considering the application filed under Sec.11 of The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed on 28.08.2023 inspite of the Orders Dt. 09.06.2022 in File No.G/PV/382/2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the application filed under Sec.11. of The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 inspite of the Orders Dt. 09.06.2022 in File No./PV/382/2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

Factual Matrix

3. The petitioner is the mother of late Vangeti Janaki Ram Reddy, who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The petitioner and her husband, Vangeti Ram Reddy, were stated to be aged about 76 and 80 years respectively. In the year 2015, they had transferred various agricultural lands, house sites and other properties in favour of their son (respondent No.5), his wife (respondent No.6), and their minor grandchildren (respondents No.7 and 8), through registered gift settlement deeds.

4. The petitioner alleged that after the said transfers, respondent No.5 failed to take proper care of the petitioner and her husband and, inter alia, alleged that the respondent No.5 was addicted to alcohol and was alienating properties without their knowledge and consent. The petitioner submitted a complaint dated 25.04.2022 before the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Act’), which was forwarded to respondent No.3 for appropriate action.

5. Respondent No.3, after issuing notices to the parties and hearing them, passed orders dated 09.06.2022 in File No.G/PV/382/2022. Respondent No.5, inter alia was directed to clear the loans obtained by mortgaging the agricultural lands and to re-register the relevant lands in favour of his son and daughter, i.e., respondents No.7 and 8, with the petitioner as guardian; to transfer agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-20 Gts. in favour of the petitioner; and to make necessary changes in respect of the house sites and commercial shops in favour of the minor grandchildren with the petitioner as guardian. The order further directed respondent No.5 and his wife, respondent No.6, to construct two additional rooms in the old house of the petitioner with all facilities within three months, and to provide food, daily necessities and medical care to the petitioner and her husband.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 preferred Appeal No.C1/5307/2022 before respondent No.2, the District Collector-cum-Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens at Nalgonda. By order dated 17.01.2023, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 09.06.2022. The subsequent proceedings before this Court record that respondent No.5 did not challenge the said order further.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.01.2023 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking implementation of the order dated 09.06.2022. The petitioner then approached this Court in W.P.No.9842 of 2023, wherein this Court directed respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 11 of the Act, preferably within four weeks from receipt of the order.

8. Alleging that the aforesaid directions were not effectively acted upon, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.08.2023 under Section 11 of the 2007 Act before respondent No.3 seeking implementation of the order dated 09.06.2022. As no effective action was taken on the said application, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced the following submissions:

               i) That the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3, as confirmed by respondent No.2 by order dated 17.01.2023, has attained finality, as respondent No.5 did not challenge the same before any higher forum. It was submitted that the petitioner, being a senior citizen, is entitled to seek enforcement of the said order under Section 11 of the 2007 Act.

               ii) That respondent No.3 failed to discharge its statutory duty under Section 11 of the 2007 Act. According to learned counsel, the application dated 28.08.2023 filed by the petitioner was not considered, notwithstanding the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.9842 of 2023. The inaction on the part of respondent No.3 was therefore contended to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the object and purpose of the Act.

               iii) That though respondent No.5 has since died, the obligations arising out of the order dated 09.06.2022 do not stand extinguished merely on account of his death. It was submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8, having been brought on record as the legal representatives of respondent No.5, are liable to fulfil the obligations arising from the said order, to the extent permissible in law and in view of the estate inherited by them.

               iv) That respondent No.6 was herself a party to the proceedings before respondent No.3 and was specifically directed to construct two additional rooms and to provide food, daily necessities and medical expenses to the petitioner and her husband, and that such obligation cannot be avoided on account of the subsequent death of respondent No.5.

               v) That under Hindu law, maintenance of aged parents constitutes a pious obligation. It was submitted that the properties transferred by the petitioner and her husband to respondent No.5 and other family members were transferred in the circumstances, in which the care and maintenance of the petitioner and her husband were to be secured. It was therefore submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8 cannot retain the benefit of the properties inherited by them while denying the corresponding obligations arising under the order dated 09.06.2022.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 8

10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8 has advanced the following submissions:

               i) That respondent No.5, during his lifetime, had complied with part of the order dated 09.06.2022 by executing Gift Deeds bearing Document Nos.894 and 896 of 2023 and Sale Deed bearing Document No.898 of 2023, all dated 08.08.2023. It was submitted that the lands which had originally been transferred by the petitioner to respondent No.5 had been re- transferred in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the petitioner, respectively, in terms of the directions contained in the said order.

               ii) In regard to the issue of the construction of two additional rooms or, alternatively, provision of accommodation, it is submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8 had offered the petitioner and her husband accommodation in their 3BHK house, but that the petitioner and her husband were not willing to accept the said arrangement. It was further submitted that respondent No.6 is a Government Doctor and respondent Nos.7 and 8 are minor students. Learned counsel contended that respondent No.6, being the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, does not fall within the expression “children” under Section 2(a) of the 2007 Act and, therefore, cannot be fastened with a personal obligation to maintain the petitioner under the Act.

               iii) By placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sheetal Devang Shah v. Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (W.P. No.3323 of 2019, dated 06.05.2022), it is submitted that a daughter-in-law is not liable to pay maintenance under the 2007 Act and that the obligation of maintenance is personal to the children. It was therefore submitted that the writ petition, insofar as respondent Nos.6 to 8 are concerned, may be dismissed.

11. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged and the material on record.

Consideration by this Court

Failure of respondent No.3 to consider the Section 11 application

12. Section 11 of the 2007 Act deals with enforcement of an order of maintenance. Sub-section (1) provides for enforcement of an order of maintenance upon satisfaction as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowance or expenses due, while sub-section (2) provides that a maintenance order made under the Act shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the CrPC, 1973 and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for execution of such order.

13. In the present case, respondent No.3 passed a detailed order dated 09.06.2022 granting several reliefs to the petitioner. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.2 by order dated 17.01.2023. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 27.01.2023 and subsequently an application dated 28.08.2023 under Section 11 of the 2007 Act seeking implementation of the order dated 09.06.2022. The record discloses that effective action on the said application did not follow.

14. It is pertinent to note that the earlier order of this Court dated 11.04.2023 in W.P.No.9842 of 2023 specifically directed respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2023 and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 11 of the 2007 Act, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The subsequent proceedings disclose that the petitioner continued to seek implementation of the order dated 09.06.2022. In such circumstances, the failure of respondent No.3 to take effective steps in accordance with the said directions and the statutory mechanism under Section 11 cannot be regarded as consistent with the object of the Act.

15. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation intended to provide for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. Section 3 gives the Act an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions contained in any other enactment, instrument or custom or usage. The provisions relating to maintenance and enforcement are therefore required to be given meaningful effect so that an order passed in favour of a senior citizen is not rendered ineffective merely by reason of delay in its implementation.

16. It is to be noted that the order dated 09.06.2022 had been confirmed in appeal by order dated 17.01.2023, and the petitioner thereafter invoked the statutory mechanism for its enforcement. The earlier direction of this Court dated 11.04.2023 also required respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Having regard to the subsequent course of proceedings, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3 failed to take effective action for implementation of the order dated 09.06.2022 in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Enforceability of the order against the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5

17. The order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed by order dated 17.01.2023 confirming the order dated 09.06.2022. The subsequent proceedings before this Court record that respondent No.5 did not challenge the said order further. The said order, therefore, stood confirmed during the lifetime of respondent No.5.

18. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.5 died on 27.10.2025. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 were thereafter brought on record as his legal representatives. It is a settled principle of law that an obligation which has crystallized into an enforceable order does not come to an end merely because the person against whom it was passed dies. Such obligation passes to the legal heirs and successors-in-interest to the extent of the estate inherited by them.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakara Adiga v. Gowri and others ((2017) 4 SCC 97 = MANU/SC/0183/2017) has held as under:

               26…It is apparent from Section 50 Code of Civil Procedure that when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been satisfied, it can be executed against legal representatives. Section 50 is not confined to a particular kind of decree. Decree for injunction can also be executed against legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" is limited to certain class of cases as indicated by this Court in Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (supra) and when the right litigated upon is heritable, the decree would not normally abate and can be enforced by LRs. of decree-holder and against the judgment-debtor or his legal representatives. It would be against the public policy to ask the decree-holder to litigate once over again against the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor when the cause and injunction survives. No doubt, it is true that a decree for injunction normally does not run with the land. In the absence of statutory provisions it cannot be enforced. However, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 50 Code of Civil Procedure, such a decree can be executed against legal representatives.

               (Emphasis supplied)

20. It is true that Section 2(a) of the Act defines “children” to include a son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter, but does not include a minor. A daughter-in-law is not expressly included in the said definition. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Sheetal Devang Shah (supra 1) does support the proposition that a daughter-in-law is not a “child” under Section 2(a) and cannot be made personally liable to pay maintenance merely on the strength of that relationship. To that limited extent, the submission of respondent No.6 is correct.

21. However, the present case does not rest solely on the definition of “children” under Section 2(a). The liability of respondent No.6 arises from four independent and cumulative circumstances, which do not require her to be treated as a “child” under the Act. Respondent No.6’s obligation is not a personal obligation de hors the estate, but an obligation fastened upon her as a party to a final order, as the legal representative of her deceased husband, as the natural guardian of the minor legal heirs, and as a beneficiary of transfers made by the petitioner.

22. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.6 was not a stranger to the proceedings. The order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 specifically names and directs “the respondent Vangeti Janaki Ram Reddy and his wife Mudududla Divya” to construct two rooms and provide care. The record shows that respondent No.6 was present before the Tribunal and placed her version. The order was, therefore, passed against the respondent No.6 after hearing her. Respondent No.6 did not challenge the said order. The order dated 09.06.2022, therefore, attained finality qua respondent No.6, and respondent No.6 cannot now collaterally contend that she is not bound by it.

23. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Tribunal is empowered to enforce its own order. A person against whom an order is passed and who does not challenge it cannot escape enforcement by taking recourse to a definition clause.

24. It is to be noted that the respondent No.6 is the legal representative of deceased respondent No.5. Under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC, legal representatives are brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. They step into the shoes of the deceased for the purpose of the proceedings. The obligation under the order dated 09.06.2022 was not a mere personal obligation which died with respondent No.5. It had crystallized into an enforceable order. Such an obligation is binding on the estate of the deceased and can be enforced against the legal representatives to the extent of the estate inherited by them. Respondent No.6, along with respondent Nos.7 and 8, has inherited the estate of respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 cannot take the benefit of the estate and simultaneously disown the burden attached to it.

25. It is relevant to note that respondent No.6 is the natural guardian of respondent Nos.7 and 8, who are minors and in whose favour respondent No.5 executed Gift Deed Nos.894 and 896 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023. The properties in their hands are traceable to the properties originally gifted by the petitioner. Under Section 23 of the Act, where a senior citizen has transferred property by way of gift subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities, the transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and is voidable at the option of the transferor. The gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8, and the gift deed earlier executed in favour of respondent No.6, were all part of the same family arrangement meant to secure the care and maintenance of the petitioner and her husband. Respondent No.6 cannot retain the benefit of those transfers and, at the same time, refuse to discharge the obligation. As natural guardian, respondent No.6 is bound to ensure that the estate in the hands of the minors is applied towards the lawful obligations attaching to it.

26. The Madras High Court in Mohamed Dayan vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur District and others (2023 (3) CCC 374 = MANU/TN/5114/2023) has held as under:

               38. The Kerala High Court observed in the case of Radhamani and Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen Act, cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates that "Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal". The phrase " subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities" does not mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain any such condition expressly. "Subject to the condition" as employed in Section 23(1), is to be holistically understood with reference to the subsequent phrase i.e., "deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence". Both the phrases would amplify that the deeming clause should be considered so as to form an opinion that the phrase "subject to condition" amounts to an implied condition to maintain the senior citizen and any violation would be sufficient for the purpose of invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, to cancel the Gift or Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen.

               39. To elaborate, the phrase "subject to condition" employed Section 23(1) of the Act, is to be understood with reference to the love and affection by the senior citizen towards the person in favour of whom such Gift or Settlement Deed has been executed.

               40. "Love and Affection" is an implied condition in the context of Section 23(1) of the Act, and therefore, there need not be any express condition in the Settlement Deed for the purpose of maintaining the senior citizen. Refusal of maintenance after executing the Settlement Deed or Gift Deed, is the ground for invoking the deemed ground of fraud or coercion or undue influence. When the deeming clause has been incorporated under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, 'Love and Affection' to be construed as the consideration for executing the Gift or Settlement Deed. Thus the condition need not be expressly made in the document and the love and affection, which resulted in execution of the Deed by the senior citizen is to be construed as a condition for the purpose of invoking the deeming clause for declaring the document as fraud or coercion or undue influence.

               41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to consider the human conduct towards them. When the human conduct is indifferent towards senior citizen and their security and dignity are not protected, then the provisions of the Act, is to be pressed into service to safeguard the security and dignity of senior citizen. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the provisions are of paramount importance and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint filed by the senior citizen on the ground that there is no express condition for maintaining the senior citizen. Even in the absence of any express condition in the document, "Love and Affection" being the consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed, such love and affection becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the second respondent in the present case.

               42. The human conduct in the context of the senior citizen Act, is to be understood considering the relationship between the senior citizen and the beneficiaries of the Gift or Settlement Deed. Mostly the parents are executing the document in favour of their children. Since they may not be in a position to maintain the property at their old-age and more-so, they are intending to visibly express their love and affection towards their children by settling their properties. In some cases, the parents during their old-age are settling their property in order to avoid conflict between their children and to ensure that all children get equal share. If at all the parents decide to settle the property in favour of a son or daughter, then they are doing so, only with love and affection and with a fond hope that they will be taken care of by the son or daughter during their old-age. Thus love and affection, being the consideration and implied condition, within the meaning of Section 23(1) of the Act. The subsequent non-maintenance of senior citizen would attract Section 23(1) of the Act and the Authorities in such circumstances are empowered to declare the document as null and void.

               (Emphasis supplied)

27. Under Hindu law, the maintenance of aged parents is not merely a contractual or statutory duty; it is a pious obligation. The son's duty to maintain his parents is considered a sacred obligation, and it attaches to his estate. On the death of the son, the estate in the hands of his heirs remains burdened with that obligation. The widow and children of the deceased son are, therefore, bound to maintain the aged parents out of the estate. This principle is consistent with the object of the 2007 Act, which is a beneficial legislation meant to protect the life and property of senior citizens. The Act has an overriding effect under Section 3. A construction which allows the legal heirs to enjoy the estate while leaving the aged parents destitute would defeat the very purpose of the Act.

28. Further the reliance placed on Sheetal Devang Shah (supra 1) by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 is distinguishable. In that case, the daughter-in-law was sought to be made personally liable for payment of maintenance solely because of her relationship as daughter-in-law. There was no prior order specifically directing her to provide accommodation or care. In the present case, respondent No.6 was a party to the proceedings, was specifically directed by the Tribunal, did not choose to challenge the order, and is now the legal representative of the deceased son and the natural guardian of the minor legal heirs. Respondent No.6’s liability is, therefore, not based on the definition of “children” under Section 2(a). It is based on the binding nature of the final order, the doctrine of legal representation, the obligation attached to the estate of the deceased respondent No.5.

29. In the aforesaid circumstances, while respondent No.6 cannot be described as a “child” within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act, she is nevertheless bound by the obligations of her deceased husband, respondent No.5. Respondent No.6’s liability is not personal de hors the estate, but arises from her status as a party to the final order, as the legal representative of the deceased, as the natural guardian of the minor heirs, and to the extent of the estate inherited. Respondent No.6 cannot escape the directions contained in the order dated 09.06.2022, as confirmed by order dated 17.01.2023, by taking shelter behind the definition clause. The Tribunal is entitled to enforce the said order against her and the estate in her hands in accordance with Section 11 of the Act.

Liability of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to fulfil the obligations

30. It is apposite to note that the order dated 09.06.2022 contains several directions. Some of them have been partially complied with by execution of the Gift Deeds and Sale Deed dated 08.08.2023. However, the crucial direction relating to the construction of two additional rooms with all amenities and the provision of food, daily needs, medical expenses and care to the petitioner and her husband continues to remain a matter of compliance.

31. This Court vide order dated 06.03.2024, recorded the statement of respondent No.5 and his wife that they were residing in a 3BHK house and had invited the petitioner and her husband to stay with them, which offer was stated to have been declined. This Court, referring to the direction contained in the order dated 09.06.2022, directed respondent No.5 to inform the Court regarding the arrangements made for constructing the two additional rooms and also to come up with an alternative proposal by depositing a lump-sum amount in the bank accounts of the petitioner and her husband towards their accommodation, maintenance and medical expenses. The subsequent proceedings show that the question of compliance continued to be considered by this Court and that the legal representatives sought time to place the relevant material regarding such compliance on record.

32. Respondent Nos.6 to 8, being the legal representatives of respondent No.5, are required to satisfy the obligations arising under the order dated 09.06.2022 in accordance with law and to the extent legally enforceable against them. However, the respondent No.6 stands on a distinct footing, as she was a party to the original proceedings and was specifically directed to comply with the said order. Respondent Nos.7 and 8, being minors, cannot be treated as personally liable merely by virtue of their status as legal representatives; any liability attributable to the estate inherited by them would necessarily be confined to such estate and be subject to law. The petitioner and her husband are aged senior citizens and cannot be left to pursue the enforcement of an order that has already attained finality through repeated proceedings.

33. Moreover, the contention that the petitioner and her husband declined to stay in the 3BHK house does not, by itself, bring the proceedings to an end or render the specific direction contained in the order dated 09.06.2022 otiose. The said order specifically directed the construction of two additional rooms with all amenities, besides providing food, daily necessities and medical expenses. At the same time, the order dated 06.03.2024 contemplated an alternative arrangement by way of a lump-sum deposit towards accommodation, maintenance and medical expenses. Therefore, if the petitioner is unwilling to stay in the existing 3BHK accommodation, the respondents are required to comply with the final order in the manner directed therein or place before the competent authority an appropriate alternative arrangement consistent with the directions already issued. The respondents cannot treat the offer of accommodation in the existing house, by itself, as extinguishing the obligations arising under the order dated 09.06.2022. Therefore, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are liable to fulfil the obligations of deceased respondent No. 5 under the order dated 09.06.2022, as confirmed by order dated 17.01.2023.

Conclusion

34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 09.06.2022, as confirmed by the appellate order dated 17.01.2023, is required to be given effect in accordance with law. The death of respondent No.5 does not render the proceedings infructuous, and the liability of respondents 6 to 8 has to be considered having regard to the nature of the directions issued and their respective legal status. Respondent No.3 shall therefore take effective steps under Section 11 of the 2007 Act, after taking into account the compliance already effected and determining the extent of enforceability against the respondents in accordance with law, so that the petitioner, a senior citizen, is not left without the benefit of the order already passed in her favour.

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, in the following terms:

               i) The inaction of respondent No.3 in considering the application dated 28.08.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the 2007 Act, is declared as illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act.

               ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the said application and take effective steps for enforcement of the order dated 09.06.2022 in File No.G/PV/382/2022, as confirmed by the order dated 17.01.2023 in Appeal No.C1/5307/2022, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               iii) Respondent Nos.6 to 8, being the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5, shall comply with the obligations arising from the order dated 09.06.2022, as confirmed by the order dated 17.01.2023, to the extent legally enforceable against them. In particular:

               a. The direction contained in Point No.5 of the order dated 09.06.2022 relating to construction of two additional rooms with all amenities for the petitioner and her husband shall be complied with.

               b. Alternatively, the respondents may place before respondent No.3 an appropriate proposal consistent with the directions of this Court dated 06.03.2024 towards their accommodation, maintenance and medical expenses, including by way of a lump-sum deposit in the bank account of the petitioner and her husband, as may be determined by respondent No.3.

               c. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 shall provide food, daily necessities, medical expenses and proper care to the petitioner and her husband shall be enforced in accordance with the order dated 09.06.2022.

               d. Respondent No. 6 shall be personally liable to comply with the said directions. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 shall be liable to the extent of the estate inherited by them from deceased respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6, as the natural guardian of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, shall ensure compliance on their behalf.

               e. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 shall not alienate or create any third-party interest in the properties involved in the present proceedings, without the prior permission of respondent No. 3, till the obligations under the order dated 09.06.2022 are fully complied with.

              iv) Respondent No.3 shall enforce the order dated 09.06.2022 in accordance with Section 11 of the Act, keeping in view the interim directions issued by this Court on 06.03.2024, which shall stand continued and extended to respondent Nos.6 to 8, and shall, in the event of wilful disobedience, take appropriate action against the persons responsible in accordance with law.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.