FDs, Jewels Are Property Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Allows Mother's Plea For Return Of Assets After Daughter Fails To Pay Maintainance

The Madras High Court recently observed that fixed deposits in Banks, jewels, etc would come within the definition of “property” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The court thus noted that a complaint under Section 23 of the Act was maintainable when the daughter failed to maintain the mother after having fixed deposits transferred in her name. “Therefore, the fixed deposits and the jewels are coming under the definition of property in the Act, 2007 and the complaint under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 filed by the petitioner [mother] in respect of the return of fixed deposits and the jewels is very much maintainable,” the court said. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reiterated that the 2007 Act was a beneficial legislation that must be given a liberal construction in consonance with the objective of the Act. The court added that the Act was aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, and when two views was possible, the court should interpret it in favour of the beneficiaries. “Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India held in Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, dated 02.01.2025 in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others held that the beneficial legislation must receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objectives that the concerned Act seeks to serve. The beneficial legislation must be in line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the legislative purpose. It must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views. Therefore, it is apparent that the Act, 2007 is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea by a mother challenging an order of the District Collector refusing to grant her relief. The mother had argued that her husband had made two deposits – one for Rs. 80,00,000 and another for Rs. 90,00,000/- with her as the nominee. Following his demise, the deposits were transferred to her name. While so, the son and daughter entered into a memorandum of understanding dividing all properties equally between them including the fixed deposits and undertook to pay the interest to the mother. However, after a period of time, the daughter failed to pay the interest. The mother alleged that the daughter had obtained her signature fraudulently and transferred all fixed deposits in her name. The mother informed that she had preferred a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Sub-Collector who, after enquiry, concluded that the mother was receiving family pension and was under the custody and maintenance of the son and thus did not require any maintenance from the daughter. Though an appeal was filed with the District Collector, it was dismissed, prompting her to approach the High Court. It was argued that though the mother was under the custody of the son, she was bedridden and was struggling for medical expense and other basic amenities. The daughter denied the allegations and submitted that the deposits and other jewels did not come within the definition of property under Section 23 of the Act as the provisions of the Act could be attracted only in case of immovable properties. She also denied having obtained signatures fraudulently and submitted that she was ready and willing to maintain the mother till her lifetime. The court noted that the deposits in the mother's name were fraudulently transferred in favour of the daughter. The court noted that though the daughter had undertaken to pay interest on the fixed deposits, she had failed to do the same, violating the undertaken given in the memorandum. The court added that even if the mother had agreed to transfer the deposits, it should be presumed that she expected the continuation of care and love from the settlee (children) even after execution of the settlement deed. The court added that the condition under Section 23 was to be understood based on the conduct of the settlor and not with respect to specific stipulation in the deed of transfer. “The intention of the Legislature and terms of the Act would declare certain transfer as void, taking note of the fact that by taking advantage of the emotionally dependent senior citizens, relatives grab the property on the pretext of providing emotional support. Therefore, the Legislature thought that such transaction could be declared as void, as the conduct leading to the transaction was based on malice or fraud. Therefore, the condition referred under Section 23 has to be understood based on the conduct of the settlor and not with reference to the specific stipulation in the deed of transfer,” the court noted. Thus, the court held that it was sufficient if the settlee breached the promise given to the settlor at the time of settlement. The court, therefore, directed the daughter...

FDs, Jewels Are Property Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras HC Allows Mother's Plea For Return Of Assets After Daughter Fails To Pay Maintainance

Upasana Sajeev

Tags