Only legal heirs are responsible for maintaining senior citizens without children, the Kerala High Court recently held.
Hence, a woman cannot be directed to maintain her husband's aunt as she did not qualify as a 'relative' under Section 2(g) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act), the Court said
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar clarified that possessing a senior citizen's property does not by itself create a maintenance obligation unless the person is also a legal heir under applicable personal law.
"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," the Court added.
The case involved a childless senior citizen who gifted her property in 1992 to her nephew.
After the nephew died in 2008, the property passed to his wife, the appellant.
The senior citizen sought maintenance from the appellant, arguing that possession of her property by the appellant created a duty to maintain her under Section 4(4) of the Act, which requires certain 'relatives' to support childless senior citizens.
The Maintenance Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to maintain the aunt.
The same was upheld by the appellate authority and later by a single-judge of the Kerala High Court.
The single-judge interpreted the Act's provisions to mean that anyone in possession of or likely to inherit the property of a childless senior citizen qualified as a 'relative' and thus, must maintain the senior citizen.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal against the single-judge's order.
Before the Division Bench, the issue was whether possession of property by a person who is not a legal heir would be enough to bring that person within the definition of 'relative' under Section 2(g) of the Act.
The Section defines 'relative' as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen who is not a minor and who possesses or would inherit the senior citizen's property.
The Court stressed that the definition contained four conditions which must be met for the maintenance obligation to arise:
the senior citizen must be childless;
the person must be a legal heir under personal law;
the person must be an adult;
they must be in possession of or entitled to inherit the property.
The Court explained that a legal heir is one entitled to inherit under the personal law applicable to the senior citizen, and this status cannot be conferred merely through possession or past transactions, such as a gift deed.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the appellant was not a legal heir under the Indian Succession Act and that her ownership arose solely from inheriting her husband's estate, which had included the gifted property.
Therefore, she fell outside the statutory definition of 'relative' and could not be compelled to provide maintenance under Section 4(4) of the Act, the Court concluded.
Hence, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the single-judge's decision.
It, however, left it open to the aunt right to pursue any other remedies available under law for an alleged violation of the gift deed's terms.
The appellant was represented by advocates RT Pradeep, M Bindudas, and KC Harish while the respondent was represented by advocate S Sujini
[Read Judgment]