The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that elderly parents have the right to take back property gifted to relatives if, after the transfer, they are neglected or denied basic care. The Court made it clear that this right exists even if the gift deed does not clearly mention a duty to maintain the senior citizens.
A Division Bench led by the Chief Justice dismissed a writ appeal filed by Ramkrishna Pandey and another, and upheld earlier orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, the appellate authority, and a Single Judge of the High Court.
The case concerned a house in Bilaspur that an elderly couple had gifted in 2016 to a close relative and their daughter. After the transfer, the parents approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. They complained that they were harassed and denied basic necessities such as electricity, food, and medical treatment. According to them, the situation became so difficult that they were forced to leave their home and move into an old-age home.
The relatives who received the property argued that the gift deed was unconditional and did not contain any written promise to look after the parents. They also claimed that the parents were financially stable because they received a pension and owned other properties, and therefore could not seek relief under the law.
The High Court rejected these arguments. It said the Act is meant to protect senior citizens and should be interpreted in a liberal and practical manner. The Court explained that a written maintenance clause in a gift deed is not compulsory. The duty to care for elderly parents can be understood from family relationships, the circumstances in which the property was transferred, and how the beneficiaries behaved afterwards.
The Court also noted that having a pension or other property does not take away a senior citizen’s right to protection if they are being neglected or treated without dignity. In this case, the evidence showed that the elderly couple had to leave their own house because of hostile behaviour, which fully justified cancelling the gift deed.
The High Court further dismissed objections about the way the Maintenance Tribunal functioned. It clarified that proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and do not require a full civil trial. Since all authorities had reached the same factual conclusions, the Court found no reason to interfere.
With this decision, the High Court reinforced that property transfers made by senior citizens can be cancelled if the trust placed in relatives is broken and basic care is denied.