URMILA DIXIT V. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT & ANR. (2025)

CITATION:

2025 INSC 20 Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024

BENCH:

Sanjay Karol J.

INTRODUCTION:

This case pertains to the Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides that the transfer of property by a senior citizen to be void in certain circumstances such as undue influence and failure to provide maintenance basic physical needs. This case arose due to the failure of the children to ensure the well-being and maintenance of their senior citizen parents after the transfer of property in their favor. The judgement was delivered on January 2, 2025, by Single Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol. This case revolves around a son who promised his parents for their well-being and maintenance but failed to do so after the property was transferred in his name. The court examined the validity of such transfer of property under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the children fail to provide to their parents, who are senior citizens.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Appellant, Urmila Dixit, is the mother of the respondent, Sunil Sharan Dixit. A property was purchased by the Appellant in 1968, for which a Gift Deed was executed by the Appellant in favor of the respondent in 2019, wherein it had been stated that that the donee (Respondent) maintains the donor (Appellant) and makes provision for everything. Allegedly, on the same day, a promissory note was executed by the Respondent that he will take care of the Appellant till the end of her life, and if he does not do so, the Appellant will be at liberty to take back her Gift Deed. The Respondent has denied of any such promissory note.  In 2020, the Appellant filled an application under Section 22 and 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the sub-divisional magistrate, Chhatarpur, that she and her husband were attacked by the Appellant for transferring more property and the love and affection has completely ended after the execution of the gift deed. The Appellant prayed for the setting aside for the Gift Deed. The application was allowed and the transfer of the property from the Appellant to the Respondent was held null and void. The Respondents preferred an appeal and filed a writ petition at Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, where their appeal was rejected on the grounds that they had failed to serve their parents who are senior citizens. 

ISSUES:

The petition raised the following critical questions of law-:

1. Whether a property transfer (like a gift deed) can be declared void under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act if the child fails to provide care?
2. Whether the Maintenance Tribunal has the legal authority to not only cancel a gift deed but also order the eviction of the neglectful child and restore possession of the property to the senior citizen?

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS:

The Appellant raised the following arguments in the court to support her plea to declare the Gift Deed null and void-:

1. The Appellant alleged that the respondent had attacked her and her husband for the transfer for further property.
2. The Appellant said that that the love and affection with respondent had completely ended after the transfer of the property.
3. The Appellant argued that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the state has a duty to ensure that the senior citizens live a life of dignity. The state should allow reclaiming of property from neglectful heirs.
4. The Appellant urged the court to view the matter with a broad and beneficial vision, without which the statute would fail to fulfil its objective.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondent presented the following arguments in the court to quash the plea of the Appellant-:

1. The Respondent argued that the promissory note mentioned by the Appellant which stated that if respondent failed to take care of the Appellant and her husband, they were at liberty to take back their property gifted to him. He alleged that the promissory note was fabricated.
2. The Respondent argued that the Gift Deed did not contain any such clause which required the Respondent to provide maintenance to the Appellant.
3. The Respondent argued that the Gift Deed was valid, voluntary, and unconditional and could not be declared null and void due to family disputes.
4. The Respondent contended that the claims of the Appellant regarding abuse and neglect were exaggerated and based on personal differences.

JUDGEMENT:

The court analysed the Preamble of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it stated that the act is intended towards maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The Court held that the act is a beneficial piece of legislation, which secures the rights of the senior citizens and provides the remedies for the challenges faced by them. The Court examined the documents on record- promissory note and the Gift Deed. Therefore, the Court quashed the Gift Deed and allowed the appeal of the appellant. The Court ruled that the Section 23 of the act says that the maintenance for parents and senior citizens does not need to be stated explicitly within the gift deed. The Court also nulled the argument of the Respondent, where he questioned the authority of the Maintenance Tribunal to take back property. The Court clarified that the Maintenance Tribunal have the authority to order eviction, restore possession of the property to the senior citizens and in certain circumstances, declare the transfer of property null and void. If a senior citizens transfer his/her property to children and establishes that the transfer was subject to the expectation of care and maintenance, and the maintenance is denied, the transfer can be revoked. The judgement also provided guidelines for future cases by encouraging senior citizens to explicitly document maintenance conditions to avoid disputes in the future.

ANALYSIS:

This case revolves around the Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provides senior citizens and parents with the right to take back their gifted property from the children if they are not cared or provided with maintenance. The appellant, Urmila Dixit, a senior citizen and the mother of the respondent, Sunil Sharan Dixit, transferred her property, which she had purchased in 1968, to her son through a gift deed out of love and affection. After the gift deed was executed, her son started to abuse her and her husband to transfer the remaining property. This forced the appellant to approach the sub-divisional magistrate to revoke the gift deed.

The case questioned the authority of the Tribunals to order eviction and declare property transfers null and void in such cases. The Court also examined the revocation of gift deeds made in love and affection by the senior citizens when the children fail to take care of them. The rights of senior citizens including their dignity and welfare were also questioned in this case.

The appellant approached the court under Section 23 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This provision of the act empowers the senior citizens to approach the authorities for revocation of property transfers, if the children fail to fulfill their material needs or provide them with maintenance. Section 24 of the act was also cited in this case, which refers to the abandonment of a senior citizen. This act makes abandonment of senior citizen a punishable offence with both imprisonment and fine. In this case, the appellant and her husband was not just abandoned and neglected but also abused. 

While giving the judgement, the court examined various precedents. In the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 636, the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include the right of senior citizens to live with dignity, adequate shelter, and health. The court also ordered the government to make action plans to improve the conditions of the senior citizens. In the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat 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. The case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. (20140 1 SCC 188 was specifically invoked by Justice Sanjay Karol to underline the necessity of a purposive interpretation of a beneficial welfare law.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, Urmila Dixit, and quashed the gift deed. The property was removed from the possession of the respondent and ordered him to restore the full possession of the property to the appellant. The Court, towards the end, emphasized the social and constitutional duty of the children to provide for their parents. The Court also noted that no procedural technicality can be used to abridge the rights of the senior citizens to live with dignity. 

SOURCES:

1. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, No. 56 of 2007 (India). India Code. 
2. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024, Supreme Court of India (Jan. 2, 2025)
3. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others. Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, 2 Jan. 2025. Indian Kanoon, indiankanoon.org.