Introduction
In Indian society, it is common for parents and elders to gift their property to their children or close relatives out of love and affection, expecting care and support in return. However, many senior citizens later find themselves neglected or abandoned by those very beneficiaries. To safeguard their welfare, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”) provides them with the right to claim maintenance and, under Section 23, to revoke a property transfer made on the condition of being maintained.
A recent decision of the Bombay High Court has clarified a crucial aspect of Section 23: even if the condition of maintenance is not expressly stated in the gift deed, it may be implied and proved through evidence. This ruling significantly strengthens the protective scope of the Act and aligns with its social-welfare objective.
The Legal Framework: Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act
Section 23(1) of the Act provides that:
“Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property… subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.”
Purpose and Scope
The legislative intent behind this section is twofold:
1. Preventing exploitation of the elderly who part with their assets in good faith; and
2. Enabling quick restitution of property if the transferee fails to fulfill the moral and legal obligation of care.
The provision allows senior citizens to reclaim their gifted property, but its operation depends on whether the gift was made “subject to the condition” of maintenance — the key phrase that has sparked judicial debate.
The Judicial Debate: Express vs Implied ConditionA recurring question before courts has been: Must the gift deed itself explicitly mention the condition of maintenance for Section 23 to apply?
The Strict (Express Condition) InterpretationSome earlier High Court decisions, particularly from Kerala and Delhi, adopted a narrow reading, holding that unless the condition of maintenance is specifically incorporated in the instrument of transfer, Section 23 cannot be invoked. This interpretation was justified on the grounds of:
• Certainty and clarity in transactions;
• Avoidance of speculative or fabricated claims; and
• Respect for the sanctity of registered documents.
The Liberal (Implied Condition) Interpretation
Conversely, courts such as the Madras and Bombay High Courts have preferred a purposive approach, holding that an express clause is not mandatory. They reason that many elderly donors, especially when gifting to children, may not reduce such expectations into writing, relying instead on trust and family bonds. Insisting on a written clause would undermine the Act’s welfare purpose.
The Bombay High Court’s Ruling
In the recent judgment titled XYZ v. Maintenance Tribunal & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that“A senior citizen who transfers property by way of gift expects to be maintained by the donee, and such a condition need not be specifically incorporated in the instrument of transfer.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that:
The Act is a beneficial legislation, intended to protect senior citizens from neglect and abuse. Hence, it should receive a liberal and purposive interpretation rather than a narrow technical one.
The existence of a maintenance condition can be inferred from the circumstances — such as the relationship between the parties, their conduct, and the context of the transfer.Insisting on a written clause would defeat the Act’s purpose, as many elderly persons execute simple gift deeds without legal advice or detailed stipulations.
The Tribunal or Court must, however, ensure that the implied condition is established by credible evidence, such as oral testimony, correspondence, or admissions by the donee.Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to declare the transfer void after finding that the donee-son had neglected his parents post-transfer.
Precedential Background
Supreme Court Guidance: Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022) 2 SCC 438The Supreme Court clarified that Section 23 can be invoked only if the transfer was made on the condition that the donee would maintain the donor. However, the Court did not mandate that the condition must be written — leaving room for High Courts to interpret it based on facts.
Other Bombay High Court Rulings
• In [HC Refuses to Stay Cancellation of Flat Gifted to Son] (TOI, 2024), the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision cancelling a gift deed where the son had failed to take care of his parents.
• In [Senior Citizens Act Not a Tool to Settle Property Row] (TOI, 2024), the Court cautioned against misuse of the Act and held that not every family dispute over property can be dressed up as a maintenance issue.
These cases show a balanced approach — the Court protects senior citizens but insists on genuine evidence of neglect and an implied promise of care.
The Principle of Implied ObligationThe Bombay High Court’s ruling effectively imports the principle of “implied promise” from contract law into the domain of welfare legislation. It recognises that:
• In the parent–child relationship, maintenance is a natural expectation, even if unwritten.
• The moral duty transforms into a legal obligation when linked to a property transfer.
• The presumption of such a condition is rebuttable — the donee can prove that the gift was absolute and unconditional.
This interpretation harmonizes Section 23 with the Indian ethos of filial responsibility and with the constitutional value of protecting the elderly under Article 41 (Directive Principle on public assistance to the aged).
Practical Implications
For Senior Citizens (Donors):
• Execute gift deeds with clarity, preferably including a clause requiring maintenance and care.
• Maintain documentary evidence of any understanding or promise made by the donee.
• Approach the Maintenance Tribunal promptly in case of neglect, under Section 23.For Donees (Recipients):
• Understand that accepting a gift from a senior citizen carries a moral and legal obligation of maintenance.
• If the relationship deteriorates, maintain records showing genuine attempts to care for or support the donor.
• Defend Section 23 proceedings with evidence that the gift was absolute and not conditional.For Lawyers and Policymakers:
• Draft deeds in clear, transparent language to avoid future disputes. • Consider legislative clarification of the phrase “subject to the condition” to balance protection with certainty.
Critique and Limitations
While the Bombay High Court’s approach advances social justice, it may also create ambiguity for property transactions.
Potential issues include:
• Evidentiary uncertainty: Inferring conditions from conduct may lead to inconsistent findings.
• Misuse of Section 23: Some litigants may invoke it to reclaim property for unrelated disputes.
• Third-party complications: Cancellation of a gift may affect bona fide purchasers or mortgagees.
Hence, while the liberal interpretation promotes equity, judicial caution is necessary to prevent abuse.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling that a senior citizen need not expressly incorporate a maintenance condition in a gift deed marks a progressive step toward protecting the elderly. It ensures that the spirit of the Senior Citizens Act prevails over technical formalities and that seniors are not left remediless merely due to the absence of legal drafting expertise.By recognising implied conditions of maintenance, the Court affirms the moral and legal expectation that care is the true consideration for familial gifts. Yet, it simultaneously underscores the need for evidence-based adjudication to prevent misuse.In essence, this judgment reinforces the constitutional vision of a compassionate legal order — one that upholds dignity, welfare, and justice for India’s senior citizens.
