Senior Citizens Act : Is Express Condition To Provide Basic Amenities To Parents Necessary In Transfer Need To Attract Action Under Section 23?Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on two petitions challenging a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court which held that an express condition to provide maintenance to parents is necessary in the transfer deed for it to be cancelled under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007(hereinafter "the Senior Citizens Act").

A bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy issued notices on the special leave petitions titled "P V Krishnamarar v Jayanthi Anil Kumar and others" and "Subhashini v District Collector and others".

The special leave petitions challenged the judgment passed by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on September 22 last year holding that the condition as required under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer.

The full bench comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran, V G Arun and TR Ravi overruled the decisions which held that such a condition was implicit in a document of transfer executed by parents in favour of their children.

The Full Bench held that ethical or moral considerations cannot be invoked while interpreting the statutory provisions. The statute though inspired by traditional values,has to be interpreted strictly, the bench held.

"That the children should look after their parents, as a principle or a value, require no validation from scriptures or philosophical sources. The Act attempts to provide a dignified existence to the elderly and in drawing the contours of the power conferred under Section 23(1) we have to necessarily be conscious of the inter-play of the rights of the senior citizen and that of the beneficiaries to a transaction; of those acquired on property as regulated by various statutes", the Full Bench of the High Court held.

The special leave petitions have challenged the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court as a "hyper-technical and restrictive interpretation of Section 23, contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature".

"The High Court, in nutshell, has held that an express recital should be present in the deed of transfer to the effect that the transferees shall provide the basic amenities and 'physical needs to the transferor which is highly unjustified and depriving the rights of senior citizens who are otherwise deprived by the children of their valuable properties", one of the petitions said.

The petitioners highlighted that different High Courts have taken conflicting views on the matter.

"The statute was formulated in the wake of increasing number of cases in which senior citizens and parents were being abandoned by their own children/relatives after having transferred their assets to them. The senior citizens were thus violated of their fundamental right to live with dignity in their twilight years and the aforesaid aspects led to the enactment of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, it is submitted that any interpretation of the act must do justice to its legislative intent and objective, especially considering the fact that the Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Any reading of the act must necessarily be made in such manner that it benefits the senior citizen in question", the plea read.