URMILA DIXIT Versus SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT (Supreme Court)

The preamble of the the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007  states that it is intended towards more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution.

Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them. It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted.

In Vijaya Manohar Arbat Dr v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Anr (1987) 2 SCC 278 the Supreme Court highlighted that it is a social obligation for both sons and daughters to maintain their parents when they are unable to do so.

In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Supreme Court observed that when a case pertaining to maintenance of parents or wife is being considered, the Court is bound to advance the cause of social justice of such marginalised groups, in furtherance of the constitutional vision enshrined in the preamble. Recently, this exposition came to be reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324.

17. While issuing a slew of directions for the protection of senior citizens in Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 636, the Apex Court had highlighted:

“3. The rights of elderly persons is one such emerging situation that was perhaps not fully foreseen by our Constitution-framers. Therefore, while there is a reference to the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children in Article 39 of the Constitution and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want in Article 41 of the Constitution, there is no specific reference to the health of the elderly or to their shelter in times of want and indeed to their dignity and sustenance due to their age.

4. Eventually, age catches up with everybody and on occasion, it renders some people completely helpless and dependent on others, either physically or mentally or both. Fortunately, our Constitution is organic and this Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted in path-breaking developments in law, particularly in the sphere of social justice, which has been given tremendous importance and significance in a variety of decisions rendered by this Court over the years. The present petition is one such opportunity presented before this Court to recognise and enforce the rights of elderly persons-rights that are recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution as understood and interpreted by this Court in a series of decisions over a period of several decades, and rights that have gained recognition over the years due to emerging situations.”

(emphasis supplied)

In URMILA DIXIT Versus SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT AND ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10927 OF 2024 the Supreme Court held that gift deeds signed by parents could be quashed under Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act if the children fail to take care of them.

The transfer of property would be declared null and void, court said.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol said the Act is a beneficial legislation meant to lend a helping hand to elders who are left alone due to withering of joint family system and that its provisions should be interpreted liberally, and not in the strict sense, to protect their rights