Mere Possession Of Property Not Enough; Only Legal Heirs Liable To Maintain Childless Senior Citizens: Kerala High Court
A childless senior citizen sought maintenance from her late nephew’s wife, claiming liability under the Act due to her possession of the gifted property.
Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has ruled that only legal heirs of childless senior citizens, as defined under personal law, can be held liable to maintain them under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar held, "Anyway, 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. We are unable to agree with the impugned judgment, which held that a person in possession of or would inherit the property of a childless senior citizen is to be construed as his relative. Any such construction would do injustice to the plain language of the section."
Background
The case arose from a dispute involving a senior citizen who had no children. In 1992, she had gifted her property to her nephew. Upon the nephew’s death in 2008, the property passed to his wife — the appellant in the present case. The senior citizen later approached the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking maintenance from the appellant. She argued that since the appellant was in possession of her property, she was obligated to support her under Section 4(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the senior citizen, holding the appellant liable for maintenance. This decision was upheld by both the appellate authority and a single-judge of the High Court. The single-judge interpreted the Act to mean that any person in possession of or who is likely to inherit the property of a childless senior citizen falls within the definition of “relative” under Section 2(g), and is thus liable to maintain the senior citizen.
Challenging this interpretation, the appellant contended before the Division Bench that she was neither a legal heir under personal law nor had any obligation under the Act, merely by virtue of possessing the property.
Finding
The Division Bench closely examined the language of Section 2(g) and Section 4(4) of the Act. The Court emphasized that for a person to be considered a “relative” under the Act and thus be liable to provide maintenance the following four criteria must be satisfied, “(i) The senior Citizen must be childless; (ii) The person against whom maintenance is claimed must be a legal heir of the senior citizen; (iii) Such legal heir must not be a minor; and (iv) Such legal heir must be in possession of the property of the senior citizen or would inherit his property after his death.”
The Bench highlighted that being in possession of the property or even being in a position to inherit it in the future does not, by itself, fulfill the legal requirement of being a “relative.” The person must also be a legal heir as per the relevant personal law.
The Court held that the appellant, who came into possession of the property only through inheritance from her husband (who had received the property as a gift), did not qualify as a legal heir of the senior citizen. Under the Indian Succession Act, she had no direct legal claim to inherit the senior citizen's estate.
As a result, the Court ruled that she fell outside the scope of Section 2(g) of the Act and therefore could not be held liable to maintain the senior citizen under Section 4(4). Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the single-judge’s ruling and allowed the appeal.
However, the Court clarified that the senior citizen was free to pursue any other legal remedies, including any claim for breach of the terms of the gift deed, if applicable.
Cause Title: S. Sheeja v. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal & Ors., [2025:KER:58578]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates R.T. Pradeep, M. Bindudas, and K.C. Harish
Respondent: Advocate S. Sujini
