The statute cannot be invoked as a mechanism for resolving ordinary family property disputes. (AI image)On 02.09.2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with orders passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, rejecting a senior citizen's attempt to seek cancellation of a property transfer made in favour of his sons and to claim monthly maintenance from them.The Court held that the authorities under the 2007 Act had rightly concluded that the dispute was essentially a family and property dispute rather than a genuine case of neglect or refusal to maintain a senior citizen. It further noted that the appellant was already residing with his second wife and son from the second marriage and possessed sufficient resources to maintain himself.A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Jeet Singh, affirming the orders of the Senior Citizens Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal, and the Single Judge.Senior Citizen Sought Maintenance and Cancellation of Property TransferThe dispute arose when the appellant, a senior citizen, approached the authorities under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.The Appellant case was that he had transferred certain property to his sons from his first marriage and that despite receiving the property, they had failed to maintain him or provide him with care and support. Claiming that he was elderly, incapable of working and had no independent source of income, he sought maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month along with cancellation of the transfer deed dated 19.04.2023.The appellant claimed that after obtaining the property, his sons neglected their obligations towards him and therefore the transfer itself deserved to be annulled under the provisions of the 2007 Act.The sons strongly disputed the allegations and presented an entirely different picture before the Tribunal.According to them, the appellant had divorced their mother nearly three decades earlier, following which they were brought up by their maternal grandparents. They argued that the appellant had since remarried and had been residing with his second wife and their son from the second marriage.The sons further stated that when disputes arose regarding ancestral property, respondent No.4 had actively supported the appellant in recovering possession of the property and had borne legal expenses in civil litigation concerning the same. It was also claimed that respondent No.4 had represented and supported the appellant in various legal proceedings and had stood by him even in criminal cases arising out of property disputes.According to the sons, despite this support, the appellant later transferred part of the property in favour of his second wife through a separate deed.They also claimed that the appellant was not financially dependent and was involved in various business activities, including fish farming, a solar system business and an apple juice manufacturing unit. The sons asserted that the appellant was comfortably residing with his second family and that the present proceedings had been initiated only after disputes arose regarding settlement of accounts in one of the business ventures.The stand of the sons was that the transfer in question had been effected pursuant to a family settlement and that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act were merely an attempt to reclaim the property.Authorities Found No Case of NeglectAfter examining the material placed on record, the competent authority under the 2007 Act dismissed the petition on 17.09.2024.The senior citizen carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the appeal too was dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant had two marriages, that the respondents were his sons from the first marriage, and that he was presently residing with his second wife and son from the second marriage.The Tribunal recorded that the sons were willing to keep and care for the appellant. It further found that despite this willingness, the appellant remained focused only on cancellation of the property transfer and payment of maintenance.The Tribunal also accepted the material indicating that the appellant had business interests and was utilizing the income generated from those ventures himself. It concluded that the order of the original authority did not warrant interference.The Appellate Tribunal observed:“Respondents No. 1 and 2 are willing to accommodate and care for the appellant. However, the appellant is adamant only about canceling the property transfer and claiming maintenance allowance.”The appellant subsequently approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities under the 2007 Act. The Court noted that the evidence on record demonstrated that the appellant was residing separately from the sons of his first marriage and was living with his second wife and children born from that marriage.The Single Judge further found that the allegation that the appellant was not being maintained had not been substantiated and that he possessed sufficient property and resources to support himself.Observing that the dispute essentially revolved around recovery of property from the children of the first marriage, the Court dismissed the writ petition.Division Bench Finds No Error in Concurrent FindingsAppearing in person before the Division Bench, the appellant sought to challenge the findings recorded by all the authorities below.After hearing him and examining the record, the Court found no reason to interfere.The Bench observed that the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act had carefully examined the peculiar facts of the case and had consistently concluded that the appellant was living comfortably with his second wife and son from the second marriage. The authorities had also found that he possessed sufficient means and resources for his maintenance.The Court noted that these findings had remained unrebutted even before the Single Judge.The Bench further recorded that when specifically questioned, the appellant himself admitted that he was residing with his second wife and son. The fact that he had transferred property in favour of his second wife was also not disputed.In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the proceedings were fundamentally directed towards reclaiming property rather than securing maintenance from neglectful children.Senior Citizens Act Not Meant for Pure Property DisputesThe judgment effectively underscores that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are intended to protect senior citizens who are genuinely neglected or deprived of maintenance and support. The statute cannot be invoked as a mechanism for resolving ordinary family property disputes where the evidence shows that the senior citizen is already being maintained and possesses adequate resources.Holding that the appellant had failed to establish neglect, refusal to maintain, or any circumstance warranting cancellation of the transfer deed, and finding no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the orders refusing maintenance and cancellation of the property transfer.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)