Property Dispute Dressed as Maintenance Claim Cannot Invoke Senior Citizens Act, Punjab and Haryana HC Rules

A Division Bench dismissed a senior citizen's Letters Patent Appeal after finding his petition under the 2007 Act was aimed at reclaiming transferred property, not securing genuine maintenance.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal on 2 September 2025, brought by a senior citizen who had sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month and cancellation of a property transfer deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, with the judgment authored by Justice Rohit Kapoor, found that every authority that had examined the matter, the Maintenance Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal, and the learned Single Judge, had consistently concluded that the appellant was living comfortably with his second wife and their son, and that the real object of the proceedings was to reclaim property transferred to his sons from his first marriage, not to secure genuine maintenance.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

Jeet Singh, the appellant, is a senior citizen who had two marriages. His sons from the first marriage, respondents No. 4 and 5, were raised by their maternal grandparents after the appellant divorced their mother some 30 to 35 years ago. The appellant subsequently remarried and has been living in Sunam Udhamsinghwala with his second wife and their son, respondent No. 6.

The dispute arose from a transfer deed dated 19 April 2023, by which the appellant transferred property to respondent No. 4. The appellant then filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Act of 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging that after the transfer, respondents No. 4 and 5 had failed to provide him care and support. He claimed he was elderly, incapable of working, and had no source of income.

Respondents No. 4 and 5 contested these allegations. They placed on record that the property in question was ancestral in nature, and that respondent No. 4 had spent years supporting the appellant, helping him recover possession of the property when the appellant's brother attempted to seize it, bearing all legal expenses, and representing the appellant in civil litigation across various courts. Respondent No. 4 had also faced an FIR alongside the appellant in connection with the property. The sons further alleged that the appellant had, in a separate deed, transferred part of the same property to his second wife, and that the appellant was running multiple businesses: a fish farming venture, a solar systems business in Sunam registered in the second wife's name under the trade name UTL Solar, and an apple juice manufacturing factory in Talwandi. The transfer of property to respondent No. 4, they contended, was pursuant to a family settlement, and the present dispute had been instigated by the second wife after respondent No. 4 sought settlement of accounts in the fish farming business, which had suffered significant losses.

Successive Rejections by the Authorities Under the 2007 Act

The Maintenance Tribunal, respondent No. 3, dismissed the appellant's petition on 17 September 2024 after examining the facts and material on record.

The appellant then filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 2. That appeal was also dismissed on 19 February 2025. The Appellate Tribunal recorded that respondents No. 1 and 2 (the sons from the first wife) were willing to accommodate and care for the appellant, but the appellant was insistent only on cancelling the property transfer and claiming maintenance. The Tribunal found that the appellant had various businesses in different locations and was utilising the income from those businesses himself. It concluded that the order of the subordinate authority was based on facts and was correct.

The appellant thereafter challenged both orders, dated 17 September 2024 and 19 February 2025, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, registered as CWP-15724-2025. The learned Single Judge dismissed that petition on 28 May 2025. The Single Judge found that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded that the senior citizen was living with his second wife and the children from that marriage, separately from the sons of the first wife. The Single Judge also found that the claim of not being maintained had not been proved, as the senior citizen had enough property to support himself, and that finding had gone unrebutted even before the writ court. The Single Judge characterised the claim as “only a property dispute so as to claim back the property from the children of the first wife.”

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench heard the appellant, who appeared in person, and reviewed the material on record. It found that the authorities under the Act of 2007 had duly examined the peculiar facts and had been convinced that the appellant was living comfortably with his second wife and son from the second marriage, and that the dispute was in the nature of a family or property dispute with the sole intent of reclaiming property from the sons of the first wife.

The Bench observed that even before the learned Single Judge, the findings regarding the appellant being maintained and having sufficient resources had gone unrebutted. On a pointed query from the court, the appellant himself conceded that he was residing with his second wife and son from the second marriage. The factum of the appellant having transferred property in favour of his second wife through a separate deed was also not disputed before the Division Bench.

The appellant failed to point out any infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities under the Act of 2007, and no other point was argued before the Bench. The court found no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

The judgment reflects a consistent thread running through all four levels of adjudication: where a senior citizen has adequate resources, is living with family members who provide support, and the primary grievance is the recovery of transferred property rather than a genuine want of maintenance, the machinery of the Act of 2007 cannot be deployed to undo a property transfer. The Act's Section 23, which enables cancellation of transfers made by senior citizens on the condition of maintenance, is not available where the factual foundation of neglect is absent and the proceedings are found to be property-driven.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed LPA-2636-2025 on 2 September 2025. The delay of 64 days in filing the appeal was condoned at the outset by allowing CM-6630-LPA-2025. The orders dated 17 September 2024 and 19 February 2025 passed by the authorities under the Act of 2007, and the judgment dated 28 May 2025 of the learned Single Judge dismissing CWP-15724-2025, accordingly stand.