Madras HC Orders Daughter To Return FDs And Jewels To Mother Under The Senior Citizens Act

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, mandates children or legal heirs to take care of their elderly parents. Typically, in old age, people may transfer or gift their assets to their children, often with an understanding or sometimes with conditions that the children will take care of their basic needs. However, if children or legal heirs do not maintain the elderly, the Act provides for the reclamation of the assets or property.

In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court held that fixed deposits (FDs) and jewels come under the definition of property under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The court upheld the petition filed by an elderly woman against her daughter, referring to Section 23 of the Act, which pertains to property transfer, as per a report by Live Law.

Section 23 Of The Senior Citizens Act, 2007:

Section 23 of the Act defines when a transfer of a property becomes void. According to it, “Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal”.

The mother filed a petition with the District Collector against her daughter for not paying maintenance but didn’t get any relief. The elderly mother then approached the Madras High Court against the order. As per the mother, her husband left two FDs of Rs 80 lakh and Rs 90 lakh in which she was the nominee. After he passed away, she got them transferred to her name. However, during this time, her daughter and son entered into a memorandum of understanding for equal division of all properties, including these FDs, and decided to pay the FD interest to the mother. However, later, the daughter fraudulently got her mother’s signature for transferring the FDs in her name and stopped paying interest to the mother.

When the mother complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Sub-Collector, the observation was that the mother was living with her son, who was maintaining her. Besides, she was also receiving a family pension. Therefore, she does not need maintenance from her daughter. When the District Collector also rejected her appeal for maintenance, she approached the high court.

In the court, the daughter contended that FD is not included in the definition of property under Section 23 of the Act. She also denied the allegation of fraudulently obtaining her mother’s signature and affirmed her commitment to maintaining her mother for the rest of her life.

Court’s Observation:

The court found that the FDs were fraudulently transferred to the daughter and that the daughter has not been paying FD interest to her mother. She failed to follow the conditions under the MoU.   

In addition, the court held that Section 23 should be seen in light of the settlor’s (mother) conduct. So, despite the mother transferring the deposits to the children, it was in expectation of being cared for. The court noted the breach of promises by the settlee (daughter).

The Court’s Verdict:

Reportedly, the court noted, “The intention of the Legislature and terms of the Act would declare certain transfers 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 a transaction could be declared 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 ordered her to transfer all the deposits to her mother and also return the jewels taken from her mother.