Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that a person who is not a legal heir of a senior citizen cannot be considered a "relative" under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 merely on the basis of being in possession of the senior citizen's property. The Bench set aside the earlier judgment and quashed the orders issued by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The court clarified that the obligation to maintain a senior citizen under Section 4(4) of the Act is applicable only to those who are legal heirs as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and meet the statutory conditions.

The matter arose under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which governs the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The third respondent in the case was a senior citizen, unmarried and without children. On 30 October 1992, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of her nephew, transferring her property to him. The nephew passed away in 2008. Upon his death, the property devolved upon his wife, who became the appellant in the case.

Also Read: IBC Moratorium Doesn’t Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Leased Property | Supreme Court Upholds CoC’s Commercial Wisdom In CIRP

The third respondent claimed that the appellant was bound to maintain her under Section 4(4) of the Act. The Maintenance Tribunal concluded that the appellant was indeed obligated to provide maintenance to the senior citizen. The appellant challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Single Judge reasoned that possession of or entitlement to inherit the property of a senior citizen rendered a person a "relative" under Sections 2(g) and 4(4) of the Act, thereby imposing a duty to maintain the senior citizen.

Section 4 of the Act stipulates the circumstances in which a senior citizen may claim maintenance, including from a relative as defined in Section 2(g). Section 4(4) specifically mandates that any relative with sufficient means must maintain the senior citizen if in possession of their property or entitled to inherit it. Section 2(g) defines "relative" as any legal heir of a childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit the senior citizen's property.

The court recorded that "the first condition to be satisfied is that he must be a person in the class/group of legal heirs of the senior citizen". It explained that a legal heir is a person entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased under the applicable personal law. The definition of "relative" under Section 2(g) contains four components: the senior citizen must be childless; the person must be a legal heir; the person must not be a minor; and the person must be in possession of or entitled to inherit the property of the senior citizen.

The Bench observed that "a person who is not a legal heir of the senior citizen cannot be a 'relative' under the Act merely for the reason that he is in possession of the property of the senior citizen or would inherit his property". The judges further recorded that any interpretation to the contrary would be inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.

Also Read: Kerala HC Suspends Toll Collection On NH 544 For 4 Weeks | Public Can't Be Forced To Pay When Roads Are Not Maintained And Trust Is Breached

In the present case, the court noted that the appellant was not a legal heir of the senior citizen under the Indian Succession Act, which governed the parties. The mere fact that she succeeded to her deceased husband's property, which had been gifted to him by the senior citizen, did not render her a "relative" for the purposes of the Act.

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment under challenge. It quashed the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The court stated: "The appellant, being not the 'relative' as defined under the Act, and the obligation to maintain the senior citizen in terms of Section 4(4) being upon a relative, such obligation cannot be cast upon her". It left open the rights of the senior citizen, if any, outside the scope of the Act, to pursue remedies for alleged violations of the gift deed terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Sri. R.T. Pradeep, Smt. M. Bindudas, Sri. K.C. Harish

For the Respondents: Smt. S. Sujini

Case Title: S. Sheeja v. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal/District Collector & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:58578

Case Number: WA No. 1301 of 2019

Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice P. Krishna Kumar