Karnataka HC Restores Gift Deed to Daughter-in-Law, Quashes Tribunal Order

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of the Maintenance Tribunal that had cancelled a registered gift deed executed in favour of a woman and her minor son, restoring the transfer to full legal effect.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj ruled that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, permits the cancellation of a transfer only when it carries an express or implied condition requiring the recipient to provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the recipient fails or refuses to do so.

The case involved Tejaswini V, who married D Gopi, the son of V Dhanashekar. Amid marital discord and alleged neglect by Gopi, Dhanashekar executed a gift deed on October 14, 2020, transferring property to Tejaswini and her minor son to secure their future.

On August 17, 2022, Dhanashekar approached the Tribunal seeking cancellation of the deed, alleging that Tejaswini had failed to provide him with basic amenities. Tejaswini argued that Dhanashekar was 59 years old when he filed the application and that the deed contained no maintenance requirement. The Tribunal cancelled the deed on December 15, 2023, leading to Tejaswini's petition before the High Court.

Addressing the age threshold, the High Court held that a marginal shortfall in an applicant's age when filing under Section 23 will not disentitle them from relief if they attain the age of 60 while proceedings remain pending. Justice Govindaraj observed that courts must interpret the provision liberally to advance the legislation's objective of protecting senior citizens.

However, on the merits of the cancellation, the Court found that the gift deed was intended to secure Tejaswini and her child amid her husband's neglect and imposed no obligation on her to maintain Dhanashekar. The Court noted that the statutory maintenance obligation under Section 2(a) lay with Dhanashekar's son, not his daughter-in-law. Because the deed contained no maintenance condition, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel it.

The Court clarified that Dhanashekar could pursue separate legal remedies against his son for maintenance. Taking note of an allegation that Tejaswini was married at the age of 15, the Court also directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate and Child Marriage Prohibition Officer to verify the claim and initiate proceedings under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, if warranted.