The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for a flexible interpretation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by overturning a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling in the matter of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit. The High Court’s conclusion that the disputed Gift Deed lacked a provision requiring the transferor to pay maintenance was also overturned by the Supreme Court.
According to Section 23 of the 2007 Act, if an elderly person transfers property with the understanding that the recipient will provide basic care and amenities, the transfer may be deemed null and void. The Supreme Court’s decision gives tribunals the authority to mandate that in certain situations, property be returned to elderly parents.
In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the Act’s goal of providing quick, easy, and affordable remedies for older persons’ safety.
The bench, which was made up of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, said, “Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Consequently, it is not possible to claim that the Tribunals established under the Act, while exercising power under Section 23, are unable to order the transfer of possession. The Act’s goal and purpose would be defeated in this way”.
The court emphasized the preamble of the Act, which seeks to protect senior citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially in view of the difficulties that older people experience.
The case was a property transfer issue that began in 1968 between Urmila Dixit and her son, Sunil Sharan Dixit. Urmila claimed that her son had mistreated her and neglected her basic necessities, and she requested that the property transfer be revoked.
The Supreme Court’s decision has been praised as a major step toward protecting the 2007 Act’s intent and guaranteeing the welfare of older citizens.
Read Also: 486 Fake Property Cards Made In Gujarat, 3 Officials Booked
