Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A full bench of the Kerala High Court held to provide maintenance to parents the transfer deed must be canceled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Supreme Court shall look into two petitions that challenge this certain stance taken by the Kerala High Court. The name of the two petitions is Subhashini v District Collector and others and P V Krishnamarar v Jayanthi Anil Kumar and others.
The bench of the Kerala High Court held that the provision of ‘basic amenities and physical need’ of the senior citizen in question needs to be expressly stated in the document of transfer. The high court overruled the decision that such a condition is usually implicitly implied in a transfer deed executed in favor of the children by the parents. The special leave petition questioned this stance taken by the court on Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Full Bench held that though the statute is founded by traditional values ethical or moral considerations should not be invoked while interpreting the act and it should be read and interpreted strictly by its text. The court stated that the children should look after the parents as a principle did not need to be validated by any scriptures. The actin question attempts to provide a dignified life to the elderly citizen. Thus, the court commented that must be careful when drawing the boundaries of the powers conferred under Section 23 as they need to be conscious of the power play between the rights of senior citizens and the rights of the beneficiaries of the transaction.
The SLP was filed on the grounds that such a stance deprives the senior citizens of their rights who are deprived of their property by their children. They stated there should be no requirement to provide basic needs expressly stated in the transfer deed, such conditions defeat the object of the act, the stance failed to consider proviso 2 and 3 of Section 92 of the Evidence Act which permits a party to give oral evidence on a situation which the document is silent and the High Court failed to consider Section 23(2) of the Senior Citizen Act.
86540
103860
630
114
59824