The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ravinder Satnala, lear ed counsel for the Petitioner, Smt. G.V'rjal akumari, learned Asst Covt. Pleader for Women Developrnent and Child Wellare D partment, aPPearing for I respondent, Mr. Shiv Shanker Tiq'ari, earned counsel aPPearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. T.Vijay Han an Singh, leamed counsel fbr respondent Nos.4 to 7.

2. Responder.rt No.3 filed aPPti tion under Section 4 of the Maintenancc and Wclfare of Parents d Seniors Citizens Act, 2001 (for short,'the Act') befbre 2nd respond nt to cancel the registered gift settlement deeds bearing document N .6087 and 6088 of2012 both dated 23.04.20 I 2 and also to pay marn enance in terms of order dated

29.Ol .2O2L in t.A.No. I of 202 I in A'S' o.1.092 of 2016 of this Court.

3. Vide order dated 12.08.2024, nd respondent allowed the said application and cance[led the said regi tered gift settlement deeds. He has directed the Sub Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar and Tahsildar, Nalgonda to cancel the said registe ed gift settlement deeds and .l 7 mutate the name of 3'd respondent in the revenue recorrls in respect of the subject proPeftY.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfled r'r'ith the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal vide Appeal No At/02I12024 in terms of Section I 6( I ) of the Act belore I " respondcnt. Vide order dated 25.I 1.2024,1't respondent dismissed thc said appeal'

5. Chatlenging the said order, the petitioncr frled the present writ petition contending that in the af oresaid registercd gift settlement deeds executed by 3'd respondent in f-avour of the petitioner. thele is no condition that the petitioner shall provide basic amerrities and basic physical needs to 3.d respondent. Without considering thc said aspects, 2nd respondent passed the order dated 12.08 1024 contirrned by 1" respondent vide order dated 25.1 1.2021.

6. The petitioner is the daughter of 3'J respondent' 3'd respondent who has fited a suit vide O.S.No.l14 ol'2012 against the petitioner and her husband lbr canccllation ol thc albLcsaid gift settlement deeds both dated 2-1.04.20 I 2. The said sr-rit u'as dismissed on 26.09.201(t Feeting aggrieved and dissatisfled r'v it[.r the said judgment and decree, 3'd lespondent prel-ered an appeal vide A.S.Nq1092 of 2016. During pendency ot the said appeal, both the ,l 'I petitioner, her husband and 3"i respond nt settled the disputes, entered into compromise. In terms of the said compromise, the said appeal

was disposed of on 29.0t.2021. The etitioner has agreed that she always expressed her willingrress to take care ol wellare of J'd respondent AS agreed and it r,r,as s ecifically mentioned in the memorandurn ol settlernent cntered in A.S.No. I092 of 2016. Even then, 3'd respondent filed the afb said application before 2nd respondent seeking maintenance at the i stancc of respondents 5 to 7 3'd respondent has also executecl regis ered gift settlement deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in re pect of the land admeasuring Ac. 11.00 guntas each and also ext nded other benefits to her daughters i.e. respondent Nos..l and 5 he sons and lespondent No.3 herein are residing at Nalgonda and she as not filed any complaint or case against the other sons and daughte s for cancellation of such gift settiement deeds. She has tlled a cas only against the petitioner herein.2"d respondent did not consider the contention raised by the petitioner that she will deposit eln arrou t of Rs. t0,000/- per month to 3'd respondent's account and takc care o her well being. She is willing to pay an amount of Rs.5,00.000/- to ards her maintenance if she agrees. The said aspects were rlot co sidered by both 2nd and 1 4 t respondents in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, thc atbresaid order is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act and principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti l)evi and anotherr. With the said submissions, the petitioner sotrght 1o set aside the aforesaid orders passed by 2nd and l'' respondents respectively'

7. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader fbr Women Development and Child Welfare Depafiment, would contend that the object of the Act is to protect interest of Senior (litizens On consideration of the said facts only, 2nd respondenL llassed an order dated 12.08.2024 confirmed by l" respondent. Thelc is no irregr-Llarity in the said orders.

8. Leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.i to 7 would contend that despite agreeing that the petitioner r'r'ill takc care of the welfare of 3'd respondent in the comprornise in A.S.No. l09l ol 201 6, she is not paying any amount and not taking carc o{'rvelthre of'3'd respondent. On consideration of the said aspects onl1 , both ln'r and l" respondents passed the aforesaid orders. Therc is no inegularity in the said orders. With the said submissions, they sought to dismiss the present writ pctition. ' luozu; rz scn sze f

9. In the light of the said subrnissi n, it is relevant to note that Section 23 of the Act deals with trans r of propefty to be void in cerlain circutnstances and the sanle is ext acted below:-

23. Transfer of propert]'to bc void in rtain circumslances. l . Where any scnior citrzen rT ho. alicr Act, has by way ol gilt or othcrrvisc. h condition that thc transt'eree slrall proti e comnlencertlcnt of this s property. subiect to the e the basic amcnities and basic physical needs to the transfcror atr such transl'crce rcluscs or Iails to provide such amenities and phl si ol' property shall be deemed to have cocrcion or under undue in|uence and al needs- thc said transler bccn made hy fraud or shall at thc option of the translcror be declared void b1' thc Iribu

2. Where any senior citizen has a right r reccive rnaintcnance out of an estate and such estate or parl. thc to receive maintenance may be cnlorc ol'is transferrcd. the right against thc transl'eree if the transfcree has notice of the right- or f the transtcr is cratuilousl but not against the transf-eree lbr ctlnsi ration and u'ithout notice of right. 3. If any senior citizen is incapablc of sub-scctions (l ) and (2), aotion may bc of the organization refcrred to in E\pla section 5. 10. As per the said Provision, th ntbrcing the rights under aken on his behalI bY anY ation to sLlb-scction ( 1) of tbltowing pre-requisites are stne qua non.- l. The transfer must have been mad subject to tl.re condition that the transferee shall Provide th basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transt-eror, 6

2. The transf-eree refuses or fails to provide such atnenities arld ph1'sical needs to the transferor. The aloresaid conditions are satislied and the transl-cr shall be clecrned to have been made by way of lraud or coercion or utldue inflttcnce' Such a transler bccomes voidable at the instance of the transl'cror and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transler as void. I l. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), in paragraph No.13. the Apcx Court held as lollows:-

13. When a senior citizen parts with his or hcr prttpcrtl hr cxcouting a gift or a release or otherwise in favour ol'his ol her' near and dear oncs, a condition of looking after the scnitrr citizcn i' not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, vcrl olien suclt translers are made out of love and affection \\'ittl()tll all\ expectation in rcturn. Therelore, when it is allcgccl that tllc conditions mentioned in sub-scction (11 of Section l.l lre attachctl to a transfir- existence of such conditions must bc estlblishctl befbre the '['ribuna[. l2 In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit2, the Aper ('ottrt considered the scope of Section 23 ofthe Act. ln the said case, ttrothcr has executed a registered gift settlement deed in f-avour ol- son r'r hcrcin it has been stated that the son maintains the mothcr and rtrakes -2015 tNSC l0 7 provisions for everything. The So has also executed a vachanpatra.ipromissory note in favour o the mother wherein it has been stated that he will take care of moth r ti[[ the end of her life and if he does not do so, the mother will be a libcrty to takc back the gift deed. Son alleged that the said VACA patra/prom issory note is fabricated.

13. Mother filed an application un er Scctions 22 and 2) of the Act before the Maintenance Tribunal t cancel the gift settlement deed. The same was allowed. The son relerred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate au ority. The son has filed writ petition and learned Single Judge of Hig Courr ol' Mrdhya Pradesh dismissed the said writ petition. The n pref-er-red an appeal and Division Bench of High Coum of Madh a Pradesh sct aside the said judgment of leamed Single Judge nd made the following observations:-

6.1 Sestion 23 of the Act is a standalone pro Tribunal is only to find out whether the otherwise contains a clause providing tbr b transferee has refused or failed to provi jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal. ision- and the function of the ondition in the gilt deed or ic amenitics and uhelher the e thcm. lhere is no othcr

6.2 No condition is there in the gift deed da of the transferor.

09.09.20 I 9 lor maintenance

6.-i The argument relating to thc affidav accepted. t dt.07.09.2019. cannot be l I ! 8

14. On examination of the said facts, the Apex Courl disagreed with the view taken by the Division Bench because it takes a stlict view of a beneficiaI legislation. The relevant paragraphs are extractcd below:-

23. fhe Appcllant has submitted belbre us that such an undertaking stands grossll'unfulfi ed, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averrcd that thcre is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se thc parlies. [n such a situation. the t\t'o conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) rnust he appropriately interprcted to further the beneficial nature ol- the Iegistation and not strictl)' which woutd render otiose the intent of thc legislattLre. Therefbre. the Single Judge of the lligh Court and the tribunals bclow had rightll held thc Gifi Deed to be cancelled since the conditions fcrr thc "vell- being of thc senior citizcns were not complied with. We are tLnable to agree with the vieu,taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict vieu'of a beneficial lcgislation. 24- Belore parling with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugncd order qua the competency of the l'ribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha- (supra), this Court ohservcd that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is ncccssarl' and expcdient to ensure the protcction ol'the senior citizen. l'heretbrc. it citnttot be said that the 'Iribunals constituted under the Act, while excrcising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possessiou to be translctred. This s'ould def-eat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to providc speedl . simplc and inerpcnsive remedies for the elderly.

25. Another ohsen,ation of the High Court that must be clarilled. is Section 23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considcrcd rieu- thc relief available to senior citizcns under Section 23 is intrinsicallv linl<ed w 9 \\ ith the statement of objects and reasons o orr country. in some cases, are not bein lurtherance oi the objectives of the Act the Act. that elderll citizens of looked aftcr. It is dirccrly in empowers scnror crtrzens to secure their rights promptly whcn they tr sfer a properll subiect to the condition of being maintaincd by the trans I 5. [n Mohamcd Dayan vs. istrict Collector, Tiruppur District and othersr, the Madras High ourt held as tollorvs:- i4. In the context of the adoption of th Rule 20(2)(i) ol' the Maintenance enumerates that "it shall be the duty ensure that life and property of senior protected and they are able to live Therefore, normal life includes secu phrase "lead a nornral litc" f Scnior Citizcn I(ulcs. f the District ('ollcctor to citizens of thc District arc th securitl' and digniti " ity and dignitl'. Ihus thc normal lile as indicated under Section 2) ol the Act. is lr()t nlere lifc. but a life with security and dignity ln thc contcxt ol Artic lc I 1 ol the Constitution of India. life incl lood. shelter with dignity and SCC ncccssities of human lit'e is talling un cnrboldcncd under Section aQ) of 'l'herefore, simply providing food and s But lif'e includes providing of dece shclter and other requirements with es decent mcdical f :rcilit1. ity. All such contbincd er the term "Nornral l.ile" the Scnior ('itizcn ..\ct. elter would be insu fficicnt t medical lacilitics. lirod. rgnrty ln conlrncnsural l()n rvith the status of the f amily and taki into considcrrtion ol' the lir ing style of the senior citizen throug i5 l6 37 ' MANU/TN 5 .l12o2i '.j t0 i['1. The Kerala Iligh Courr obsc^cd in rhe casc of Radhamani and others (cired supra). Scction 2r(l) or the Senior cirizen Acr. cannot be interpreted to the disad'antagc of the se,ior citizen. Scction 2-]( I ) of thc Acr contcntplatcs that ..Where an_r senior citizcn rrho, alter tlre commencen.rcnt of this Act, has h1. rvar, ol. gili or orher*'ise. his propcrty. sub.icct to the condirio, that rhe transfbre.- shall provide tlrc basic ameniries and basic physical needs to the transf'eror and suclr transferee re{uscs or thils to provide such amenities anrl physical needs, thc said transt.er ol. property shall be deemcd kr havc been made by fraud or cocrciun or under undue influencc and shall at the option ofthc transf.eror bc declared roid br thc Tribunal... 1.he phrase ., subject to rhe condition that the transl'erec shall provide the basic arnenities..docs not ntean that thc Giti or Scrtlerncnt t)eed should contain any such condition !-\presslv. ..Sub-icct to thc condition,, as enrployed in Section 2l( l). is to be holistically understood with referencc to thc subsequenL phrasc i.e.. .,tlecrtretl to have been made b1 l_raLrd or coercion or undue influencc,.. Iloth the phrases would arnplily that the decming clause should be considered so as to lorm an opinion that the phrase -.subject to condition,, amounts to al implied condition to maintain thc senior citizon and any violation *ould be sulflcient lbr the prrrpose of inrrrking Section 23(l) of tlle Act. to cancel the (iiti or Senlcrnent [)ced executed by the senior citizen. l9 40

41.'fhe entirc purpose and ob.lcct olthc Senior Citizens Act. is to consitler thc hunran conduct tou,ards them. When thc human conduct is indiff-ercnr tow,ards senior citizen and their securitv and ./ dignity are not protected. then the p visions of the Act- is to hc presscd into service to saleguard the curity and dignity of scnior citizen. Therclirrc, the purposivc intc are ol paramount intportancc and Sect retation of thc provisiolrs on 2i of thc Act. cannot bc mis-Lrtiliscd tbr the purpose of re.iecti thc complaint filcd b1, rhc s!-r1ior citizcn on the ground that ther is no express condition firr maintaining thc scnior citizen- Evcn i conditron in the document. "Lovc thc absence ol any exprcss and Aflection'' being the consideration lirr execution of Gift or Settlement Dccd. such lole and atlcction becomes a deelning con ideration and anv violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(l) o the Act. Thus. thcre is no infirrnity in respect of the ordcr passcd by thc sccond respondcnt irr thc present case.

16. [n Radhamani and others vs. State of Kerala{. Kerala High Court considered Section 122 of ransfer of Property Act 1882 and held that Section 23 of the Act, 2 07 does not contemplatc thar the condition should form part as recital in the deed oftransfer. It onlr refcrs that there should be a condi ion for such transf'cr. This condition can be either express or i plied. If there is no cxpress recital in the deed, the Tribunal has to I k around the circumstances to tlnd out whether conduct otherwise spel the intention ofdonor to revoke. The consideration for executing a gift deed or settlement deed is based on human conduct, caring and conscientious. Transt-cr ' l0 t 5 scc Ont.ine Ker i.ii.'t0 I I t2 admittedly is or,rt of love and alfection. Any donor in a gili dced would expect itr a natural course of human conduct that continues to behave in salne rranner as behaved before execution ol'the decd. The love and alfection influenced lor execution of the deecl certainly rnust be enduring antl without atly barrier.

17. The l)ivision Bench of Kerala High Court approved the said principle laid down by Singlc Judge in Radhamani (supra) and Subhashini vs. I)istrict Coltectors.

18. On consideration of the said judgments, Division Bench of Madras Iligh ('ourt in S. Mala vs. District Arbitrator & District Collector6. on cxaminatiorl of the facts of the said citse, rvhere the senior citizen lras three daughters but she has executed settlement deed in lavour of her on[5,' son denying equa[ rights to her daughters, held, therefore it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughtcr-in-lau' rvould take care of her till her litl'tirne Such a condition being irnplied under Scction 23(1) ol the Act. the decision of the competent authot'ity annulling the settletnent deed is in consonance rvith the spirit and objectives of the Act. t zO20 Scc ()nline Kcr 1080 6 Judgrnellrited 06 0r l0li in U' A No l5lt2 and CMP Nos 27835 and lTtl rli trll0lJ I l3

19. Vide ordcr dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.No.30278 of 2023 in P.Rohit Saurya vs. the State of Telan ana, relying on the principle in Sudesh Chhikara (supra), this Cou held that cancellation of gift deeds by the Maintenance Tribunal th rein vide impugned order is without jurisdiction and bcyond the sc pe of the Act and this Court observed that the aforesaid two conditio s/pre-requisites of Section 23 of the Act, are lacking.

20. Vide order dated 08.07.2024 n W.P.No.7207 of 2024, this Courl considered held that nature o enquiry under the Act, IS summary in nature, it should also be b me in mind that the children shall have to suffer an order of evictio Therefore, it is imporlant to balance the right of the senior citizen in light of the object of the Act, and the duty not arbitrarily evict chi dren. Technicalities can be overlooked to give affect to the obje t of the Act and the Rules thercunder, it must also be ensured that ere is substantial compliance of the procedure. Total non-complianc of procedure in a summary proceeding is impermissible and has t e potential of substantially prejudicing one party

21. Thus, as per the plinciple lai down by the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara, Urmila Dixit (sup ), the fbltowing are the pre- l4 requisites under Section 23 of the Act' to get the iurisdiction to the maintenance Tribunal'

1. The transler must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transf-eror'

2. The transf-eree refuses or faits to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transfleror'

22. The aloresaid conditions are satisfied and the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdicrion to declare the transfer as void.

23. In the light of the said principte' coming to the facts of the present case, 3'd respondent has filed an application before 2nd respondent atleging that the petitioner is not taking care of wellare as agreed in the order dated 29'01'2021 in I'A'No l of 2021 in A.S.No. 1092 of 20i6. 'fhe petitioner is staying in Hyderabad' 3'd respondent is staying in a room in Nalgonda' She is cultivating the land covered under the aloresaid two gift settlement deeds' She is also damaging the crop. The petitioner is subjecting 3'd respondent to ,/ t5 mental torlure. Therefore, she is not i a position to believe the petitioner. With the said submissions, she sought to cancel the aforesaid tw'o registered gift settlement deeds executed by her in f-avour of the petitionel

24. Vide the aloresaid two registe gift settlement deeds, 3'd respondent bequeathed the land adme suring Ac.0.38 guntas Sy.No.5l0, Ac.5.21 guntas in Sy.No.51 /es and Ac.3.2l guntas in Sy.No.508/er:. situated at Chertapalty Vi age, Nalgonda Mandal and District. In the said gift settlement dee s,3'd respondent has stated that the petitioner herein is her daughter d as such out of love and affection towards her, 3"r respondent is esirous of settling the said agricultural land in favour ol the done with atl appuftenances. In pursuance of the said intention and out f natural love and affection which 3"1 respondent has towards the petitioner/donee, 3''r respondent/donor out of her free will, without fraud, coercion or undue inlluence fiom anybody whomsoe er and in full possession of her sense, conveYed grant transfe and confirm into the petitioner/Donee all the said properly. t is further stated that the petitioner being the Donee hold the said roperty unto and to her use l6 lor ever and absolutely' She has already put the Donee in possesslon ofthc subject propefiY.

25. Thus, in both the aforcsaid gili settlcnrcrrt deeds' the aloresaid pre-requisites are lacking' Without consitlcring the said aspects, vide order dated 12.08.2024 2nd respondent di|ccted to cancel the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds l hough he has mentioned the stan<l of the petitioner that shc is ready to pay' an amount of Rs.10,000/- per nronth to 3"1 respondcnt torvards her' maintenance by way of transt-er of the same to llrc acctlut-tt ol- 3"1 respondent or Rs.5 Lakhs. he has not considered the saicl aspect'

26. As discussed supra. 3'd respondent has fllcd a suit vide o.S.No.l|4of20|2againstthepetitionerandhel.htrsbarrdfbr cancellation of the aforesaid gili settlement deeds. Vidc.iudgtnent dated 26.09.20 16. learned I Additional [)istrict 'lLrdae, Nalgonda dismissed the said suit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatislied with the said judgment and decree, 3"r respondent prelcrred arl appeal vide A.S.No. 1092 of 2016, during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner, her husband and 3"1 respondent entered into cornpromise' The terrns o1' thc said comprornise are also r-ecluccd into a memorandum of compromise whercin it is nlentiorred that well t7 wishers of the family advised them n t to fight further for the suit schedule property, being the mother and daughter to keep good relationship between thc par1ies.3'r res ndent agreed to withdraw the appeal liled by her. She requestcd the pctitioner and her husband to maintain hel till her death sincc she ca not repose any confidence tn any one of her children at old age lor h r survival. The petitioner and her husband agreed to rnaintain hcr wit all amenities.

27. Thus, the petitionel express d her readiness to deposit an amount ol Rs. 10,000/- per month into e account of 3"1 respondent or deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. B t 3'd respondent informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is t taking care of her welfare though she agreed belore the Court in .S.No.1092 of 2016 that she will take care of [rer, she is not in posi ion to receive the said alnount of Rs. 10,000/- per month lrom the petit oner. Therefore, she sought to cancel the aforesaid registered gitt settl ment deeds executed by her rn favour of the petitioner. Without consi ering the afbresaid facts, vide order dated I 2.08.2024, 2'd respondent rdered to cancel the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds execut by 3'd respondent in favour of the petitioner. '1

28. Vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2011. l" respondent conflrmed the order dated I 2.08.20 24 of 2"d respontlcnt. l'hcrcfbre, both 2"d and l" respondent lailed to consider thc .rtbrcsaid pre- requisites of Section 2l (1) ol the Act. and also tlrc principlc laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, both the orders are contrary to the Section 23 ( I ) of the Act and the principle laid do\\'n by the Apex Couft in Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit (supra). The said principle was not considered by the Madras High ('oLIrt and Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgmenls.

29. As rliscussed supra, the subject rnatter perlains to the Act,

2007. I'he object of the said statute is to provide for. nrore ef'fcctive provisions for the maintenance and welfare of petrL'nts and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and lor matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In thc Objects and Reasons of thc said Act, it is statcd that the traditional norms and values of the lndian society laid stl'ess on providing care lbr the elderly. Hou,ever, due to withering of the joint famill svstern, a large number of elderly are not being looked after br their larnily. Conscquently, their twilight years all alone and are exposccl to emotionai' neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. The l9 same clearly reveals that ageing has be me a major social challenge and there is a heed to give more attentio to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents an claim maintenance under the . Code of Crirrinal Procedure. [ 973 the procedure is both time consuming as well as expensive. Hen e, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisi ns to claim maintenance for parents.

30. On consideration of the said spects, Central Govemment has promulgated the Act, which is sum ry in nature. Sometimes, the said provisions are being misused. Takin advantage of the provisions of the said Act, at the instance of the oth r children, the parents/senior citizens are filing applications before the Maintenance Tribunal clairning maintenance, cancellation o registered documents and eviction of children. There is lot of critic sm with regard to the misuse of the said provisions

31. As discussed supra, even in th present case, 3'd respondent has executed similar gift settlem nt deeds in favour of sons/respondents 6 and 7. She has also extended similar benefits in favour of her other daughters/responden s 4 and 5. The petitioner is daughter of 3'd respondent. 3'd t'esponden is seeking maintenance only 20 lrom the petitioner. She has filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.l l4 of 2012 against the petitioner and her husband seeking cancellation of registered gift settlement deeds. The said 51111 rvas disrnissed. Thereaftcr she has preferred A.S.No. 1092 of 20 I 6. I'he sat.ne was ended in compromise. Thus, she is pursuing her remedy only against the petitioner. She is not pursuing her remedy against the other daughters and sons i.e. respondents 4 to 7. i2. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated

03.12.2021, this Court suspended the impugned order ot.t the condition of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 paying the amount of Rs,5,000/- each to the 3'd respondent towards her t-tlaitrtenance on or befbre l0'h of every month. In default, the said interirl order shall stand cancel Ied automaticallY.

31. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel fbr the petitioner herein that in compliance with the said older, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- into the account ol 3'd respondent i.e. 31448100017888 on 09.12.2024.It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that 3'd respondent has closed the said account. Therefbre. she has obtained Demand Draft No.4421429. dated

07.01 .2025 lor Rs.35,000/- drawn on State Bank of India. Nalgonda branch in favour of 3'd respondent. S e has fi led copies of the said Demand Drafts and receipt along with mcmo vide USR No.71402 of 2025, dated 16.07.2025. The said spects would reveal that 3'd rcspondent is prosecuting the aloresai litigation under the Act. 2007 at the instance ofrespondent Nos.4 to 7

34. It is relevant to note that lea ed counsel for the petitioner has handed over the said orisinal mand Drafts to the leamed counsel appearing for 3'd respondent i the open Court and leamed counsel, having received and ackr-rowl dged the said Demand Draft, issued receipt to the leamed counsel for the petitioner to the said effect.

35. Without considering the said spects, 2nd respondent passed the atbresaid order, dated 12.08.2024 r cancellation of the aforesaid gift settlement deeds and the same is c nfirrired by the l" respondent vide order dated 25.11.2024. Therefore. both the orders of 2"d and 1" lespondents are liable to be set aside

36. In the result, the writ peti on is disposed of with the fbl Iowing directions:- The impugned order of l'' respon ent dated 25.11.2024 and the order dated 12.08.2024 of 1"r resp ndent are hereby set aside 22 ll- Thc petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs'10,000r- per month to 3'd respondent by way of transferring the said amount to the account o1- 3'd resPondent. 3"rrespondent shatl furnish account number, details ofthe bank etc.. to the petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount of Rs' 10,000/- per rnonth to 3'd respondent, on or before lOth of evely rnonth' 'l'he petitioner sha[[ take care of welfare ol 3'd respondent' Respondents 4 to 7 shall also take care of the wclfare ol the 3'd respondenl. ll 3'd respondent fails to fumish the said bank accourlt details, the petitioner shall send thc said amount through Money Order or by way .of taking Dcrnand Draft thlough Rcgistered Post with Acknowledgment Due. It is the duty of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 being daughters and sons of 3'd respondent to take care of we lfare of 3'd respondent as she is aged about 80 years. Clonsequently, miscellaneous etitions, il any, pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE C PYII sEct[N oFFrcER To 1 . The Chairman and District Collector, A Welfare of Parents, and Senior Citizen 2. Revenue Divisional officer, Nalgonda, 3. One CC to SRI RAVENDAR SAMALA, 4. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV & a a n q S H S o One CC to SRI T.VIJAY HANUMAN Sl Two CD Copies Ia e b A N K f e o C C a ng S RI T T e o a H H t S E R a o T1 pellate Tribunal for Maintenance and , Nalgonda. algonda District Advocate [OPUC] HILD WELFARE, High Court for the l, Advocate [OPUC] GH, Advocate [OPUC] o 7 PSK, PVL W HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER WP.No.33877 o12024 e J o o ir. l rlL SI,i. s t o o A 1) 13 AUE c ;-5;1,11qHt: <\ .a * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS DI 1 \9 b 15 1,,