Telangana High Court
Smt. Mandadi Sulochana vs The Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance … on 7 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.33877 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ravinder Samala, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Smt. G.Vijayakumari, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Women
Development and Child Welfare Department, appearing for 1st
respondent, Mr. Shiv Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 and Mr. T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.4 to 7.
2. Respondent No.3 filed application under Section 4 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007
(for short, ‘the Act’) before 2nd respondent to cancel the registered gift
settlement deeds bearing document Nos.6087 and 6088 of 2012 both
dated 23.04.2012 and also to pay maintenance in terms of order dated
29.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.1092 of 2016 of this Court.
3. Vide order dated 12.08.2024, 2nd respondent allowed the said
application and cancelled the said registered gift settlement deeds. He
has directed the Sub Registrar, Joint Sub Registrar and Tahsildar,
Nalgonda to cancel the said registered gift settlement deeds and
2
mutate the name of 3rd respondent in the revenue records in respect of
the subject property.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the
petitioner herein has preferred an appeal vide Appeal No. At/021/2024
in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act before 1st respondent. Vide order
dated 25.11.2024, 1st respondent dismissed the said appeal.
5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present
writ petition contending that in the aforesaid registered gift settlement
deeds executed by 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner, there is
no condition that the petitioner shall provide basic amenities and basic
physical needs to 3rd respondent. Without considering the said aspects,
2nd respondent passed the order dated 12.08.2024 confirmed by 1st
respondent vide order dated 25.11.2024.
6. The petitioner is the daughter of 3rd respondent. 3rd
respondent who has filed a suit vide O.S.No.114 of 2012 against the
petitioner and her husband for cancellation of the aforesaid gift
settlement deeds both dated 23.04.2012. The said suit was dismissed
on 26.09.2016. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and decree, 3rd respondent preferred an appeal vide
A.S.No.1092 of 2016. During pendency of the said appeal, both the
3
petitioner, her husband and 3rd respondent settled the disputes, entered
into compromise. In terms of the said compromise, the said appeal
was disposed of on 29.01.2021. The petitioner has agreed that she
always expressed her willingness to take care of welfare of 3rd
respondent as agreed and it was specifically mentioned in the
memorandum of settlement entered in A.S.No.1092 of 2016. Even
then, 3rd respondent filed the aforesaid application before 2nd
respondent seeking maintenance at the instance of respondents 5 to 7.
3rd respondent has also executed registered gift settlement deeds in
favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in respect of the land admeasuring
Ac.11.00 guntas each and also extended other benefits to her
daughters i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 5. The sons and respondent No.3
herein are residing at Nalgonda and she has not filed any complaint or
case against the other sons and daughters for cancellation of such gift
settlement deeds. She has filed a case only against the petitioner
herein. 2nd respondent did not consider the contention raised by the
petitioner that she will deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to
3rd respondent’s account and take care of her well being. She is willing
to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards her maintenance if she
agrees. The said aspects were not considered by both 2nd and 1st
4
respondents in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, the aforesaid order is in
violation of the procedure laid down under the Act and principle laid
down by the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and
another1. With the said submissions, the petitioner sought to set aside
the aforesaid orders passed by 2nd and 1st respondents respectively.
7. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Women
Development and Child Welfare Department, would contend that the
object of the Act is to protect interest of Senior Citizens. On
consideration of the said facts only, 2nd respondent passed an order
dated 12.08.2024 confirmed by 1st respondent. There is no irregularity
in the said orders.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 would
contend that despite agreeing that the petitioner will take care of the
welfare of 3rd respondent in the compromise in A.S.No.1092 of 2016,
she is not paying any amount and not taking care of welfare of 3rd
respondent. On consideration of the said aspects only, both 2nd and 1st
respondents passed the aforesaid orders. There is no irregularity in the
said orders. With the said submissions, they sought to dismiss the
present writ petition.
1
(2022) 17 SCR 876
5
9. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that
Section 23 of the Act deals with transfer of property to be void in
certain circumstances and the same is extracted below:-
23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.
1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this
Act, has 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.
2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out
of an estate and such estate or part, thereof is transferred, the right
to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if
the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous;
but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice
of right.
3. If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under
sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any
of the organization referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of
section 5.
10. As per the said provision, the following pre-requisites are
sine qua non:-
1. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that
the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor,
6
2. The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs to the transferor.
The aforesaid conditions are satisfied and the transfer shall be deemed
to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue influence.
Such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and
the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as
void.
11. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), in paragraph No.13, the Apex
Court held as follows:-
13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by
executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her
near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is
not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such
transfers are made out of love and affection without any
expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the
conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached
to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established
before the Tribunal.
2
12. In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit , the Apex Court
considered the scope of Section 23 of the Act. In the said case, mother
has executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of son wherein
it has been stated that the son maintains the mother and makes
2
2025 INSC 20
7
provisions for everything. The Son has also executed a
vachanpatra/promissory note in favour of the mother wherein it has
been stated that he will take care of mother till the end of her life and
if he does not do so, the mother will be at liberty to take back the gift
deed. Son alleged that the said vacahnpatra/promissory note is
fabricated.
13. Mother filed an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the
Act before the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the gift settlement
deed. The same was allowed. The son preferred an appeal and the
same was dismissed by the appellate authority. The son has filed writ
petition and learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh
dismissed the said writ petition. The son preferred an appeal and
Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the said
judgment of learned Single Judge and made the following
observations:-
6.1 Section 23 of the Act is a standalone provision, and the function of the
Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the gift deed or
otherwise contains a clause providing for basic amenities and whether the
transferee has refused or failed to provide them. There is no other
jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.
6.2 No condition is there in the gift deed dated 09.09.2019 for maintenance
of the transferor.
6.3 The argument relating to the affidavit dt. 07.09.2019, cannot be
accepted.
8
14. On examination of the said facts, the Apex Court disagreed
with the view taken by the Division Bench because it takes a strict
view of a beneficial legislation. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below:-
23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands
grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred
that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties. In such a
situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be
appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation
and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature.
Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had
rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-
being of the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree
with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of
a beneficial legislation.
24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations
made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand
over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed
that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and
expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred.
This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide
speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.
25. Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is Section
23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considered view, the
relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked
9
with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of
our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in
furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to
secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the
condition of being maintained by the transferee.
15. In Mohamed Dayan vs. District Collector, Tiruppur
District and others 3, the Madras High Court held as follows:-
34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase “lead a normal life”
Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen Rules,
enumerates that “it shall be the duty of the District Collector to
ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District are
protected and they are able to live with security and dignity”.
Therefore, normal life includes security and dignity. Thus the
normal life as indicated under Section 4(2) of the Act, is not mere
life, but a life with security and dignity. In the context of Article 21
of the Constitution of India, life includes decent medical facility,
food, shelter with dignity and security. All such combined
necessities of human life is falling under the term “Normal Life”
emboldened under Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizen Act.
Therefore, simply providing food and shelter would be insufficient.
But life includes providing of decent medical facilities, food,
shelter and other requirements with dignity in commensuration
with the status of the family and taking into consideration of the
living style of the senior citizen throughout.
35………………
36………………
37………………..
3
MANU/TN/5114/2023
10
38. The Kerala High Court observed in the case of Radhamani and
Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen Act,
cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the senior citizen.
Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates that “Where any senior
citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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”. The phrase ” subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities” does
not mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain any such
condition expressly. “Subject to the condition” as employed in
Section 23(1), is to be holistically understood with reference to the
subsequent phrase i.e., “deemed to have been made by fraud or
coercion or undue influence”. Both the phrases would amplify that
the deeming clause should be considered so as to form an opinion
that the phrase “subject to condition” amounts to an implied
condition to maintain the senior citizen and any violation would be
sufficient for the purpose of invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, to
cancel the Gift or Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen.
39. ……………
40 ……………..
41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to
consider the human conduct towards them. When the human
conduct is indifferent towards senior citizen and their security and
11dignity are not protected, then the provisions of the Act, is to be
pressed into service to safeguard the security and dignity of senior
citizen. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the provisions
are of paramount importance and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be
mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint filed by the
senior citizen on the ground that there is no express condition for
maintaining the senior citizen. Even in the absence of any express
condition in the document, “Love and Affection” being the
consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed, such love
and affection becomes a deeming consideration and any violation
is a ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no
infirmity in respect of the order passed by the second respondent in
the present case.
16. In Radhamani and others vs. State of Kerala 4, Kerala
High Court considered Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1882
and held that Section 23 of the Act, 2007 does not contemplate that
the condition should form part as recital in the deed of transfer. It only
refers that there should be a condition for such transfer. This
condition can be either express or implied. If there is no express
recital in the deed, the Tribunal has to look around the circumstances
to find out whether conduct otherwise dispel the intention of donor to
revoke. The consideration for executing a gift deed or settlement deed
is based on human conduct, caring and conscientious. Transfer
4
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 33530
12
admittedly is out of love and affection. Any donor in a gift deed
would expect in a natural course of human conduct that continues to
behave in same manner as behaved before execution of the deed. The
love and affection influenced for execution of the deed certainly must
be enduring and without any barrier.
17. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court approved the said
principle laid down by Single Judge in Radhamani (supra) and
Subhashini vs. District Collector5.
18. On consideration of the said judgments, Division Bench of
Madras High Court in S. Mala vs. District Arbitrator & District
Collector6, on examination of the facts of the said case, where the
senior citizen has three daughters but she has executed settlement
deed in favour of her only son denying equal rights to her daughters,
held, therefore it would be a natural expectation that her son and
daughter-in-law would take care of her till her lifetime. Such a
condition being implied under Section 23(1) of the Act, the decision
of the competent authority annulling the settlement deed is in
consonance with the spirit and objectives of the Act.
5
2020 SCC Online Ker 4080
6
Judgment dated 06.03.2025 in W.A.No.3582 and CMP Nos.27835 and 27838 of 2024
13
19. Vide order dated 08.04.2024, in W.P.No.30278 of 2023 in
P.Rohit Saurya vs. the State of Telangana, relying on the principle
in Sudesh Chhikara (supra), this Court held that cancellation of gift
deeds by the Maintenance Tribunal therein vide impugned order is
without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Act and this Court
observed that the aforesaid two conditions/pre-requisites of Section 23
of the Act, are lacking.
20. Vide order dated 08.07.2024 in W.P.No.7207 of 2024, this
Court considered held that nature of enquiry under the Act, is
summary in nature, it should also be borne in mind that the children
shall have to suffer an order of eviction. Therefore, it is important to
balance the right of the senior citizen in light of the object of the Act,
and the duty not arbitrarily evict children. Technicalities can be
overlooked to give affect to the object of the Act and the Rules
thereunder, it must also be ensured that there is substantial compliance
of the procedure. Total non-compliance of procedure in a summary
proceeding is impermissible and has the potential of substantially
prejudicing one party.
21. Thus, as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Sudesh Chhikara, Urmila Dixit (supra), the following are the pre-
14
requisites under Section 23 of the Act, to get the jurisdiction to the
maintenance Tribunal.
1. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that
the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor,
2. The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and
physical needs to the transferor.
22. The aforesaid conditions are satisfied and the transfer shall
be deemed to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue
influence. Such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the
transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare
the transfer as void.
23. In the light of the said principle, coming to the facts of the
present case, 3rd respondent has filed an application before 2nd
respondent alleging that the petitioner is not taking care of welfare as
agreed in the order dated 29.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
A.S.No.1092 of 2016. The petitioner is staying in Hyderabad. 3rd
respondent is staying in a room in Nalgonda. She is cultivating the
land covered under the aforesaid two gift settlement deeds. She is also
damaging the crop. The petitioner is subjecting 3rd respondent to
15
mental torture. Therefore, she is not in a position to believe the
petitioner. With the said submissions, she sought to cancel the
aforesaid two registered gift settlement deeds executed by her in
favour of the petitioner.
24. Vide the aforesaid two registered gift settlement deeds, 3rd
respondent bequeathed the land admeasuring Ac.0.38 guntas in
Sy.No.510, Ac.5.21 guntas in Sy.No.513/అ and Ac.3.21 guntas in
Sy.No.508/� situated at Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and
District. In the said gift settlement deeds, 3rd respondent has stated
that the petitioner herein is her daughter and as such out of love and
affection towards her, 3rd respondent is desirous of settling the said
agricultural land in favour of the donee with all appurtenances. In
pursuance of the said intention and out of natural love and affection
which 3rd respondent has towards the petitioner/donee, 3rd
respondent/donor out of her free will, without fraud, coercion or
undue influence from anybody whomsoever and in full possession of
her sense, conveyed grant transfer and confirm into the
petitioner/Donee all the said property. It is further stated that the
petitioner being the Donee hold the said property unto and to her use
16
for ever and absolutely. She has already put the Donee in possession
of the subject property.
25. Thus, in both the aforesaid gift settlement deeds, the
aforesaid pre-requisites are lacking. Without considering the said
aspects, vide order dated 12.08.2024 2nd respondent directed to cancel
the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds. Though he has
mentioned the stand of the petitioner that she is ready to pay an
amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to 3rd respondent towards her
maintenance by way of transfer of the same to the account of 3rd
respondent or Rs.5 Lakhs, he has not considered the said aspect.
26. As discussed supra, 3rd respondent has filed a suit vide
O.S.No.114 of 2012 against the petitioner and her husband for
cancellation of the aforesaid gift settlement deeds. Vide judgment
dated 26.09.2016, learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda
dismissed the said suit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
said judgment and decree, 3rd respondent preferred an appeal vide
A.S.No.1092 of 2016, during the pendency of the said appeal, the
petitioner, her husband and 3rd respondent entered into compromise.
The terms of the said compromise are also reduced into a
memorandum of compromise wherein it is mentioned that well
17
wishers of the family advised them not to fight further for the suit
schedule property, being the mother and daughter to keep good
relationship between the parties. 3rd respondent agreed to withdraw the
appeal filed by her. She requested the petitioner and her husband to
maintain her till her death since she cannot repose any confidence in
any one of her children at old age for her survival. The petitioner and
her husband agreed to maintain her with all amenities.
27. Thus, the petitioner expressed her readiness to deposit an
amount of Rs.10,000/- per month into the account of 3rd respondent or
deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. But 3rd respondent informed the
2nd respondent that the petitioner is not taking care of her welfare
though she agreed before the Court in A.S.No.1092 of 2016 that she
will take care of her, she is not in position to receive the said amount
of Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioner. Therefore, she sought to
cancel the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds executed by her in
favour of the petitioner. Without considering the aforesaid facts, vide
order dated 12.08.2024, 2nd respondent ordered to cancel the aforesaid
registered gift settlement deeds executed by 3rd respondent in favour
of the petitioner.
18
28. Vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, 1st respondent
confirmed the order dated 12.08.2024 of 2nd respondent. Therefore,
both 2nd and 1st respondent failed to consider the aforesaid pre-
requisites of Section 23 (1) of the Act, and also the principle laid
down by the Apex Court. Therefore, both the orders are contrary to
the Section 23 (1) of the Act and the principle laid down by the Apex
Court in Sudesh Chhikara and Urmila Dixit (supra). The said
principle was not considered by the Madras High Court and Kerala
High Court in the aforesaid judgments.
29. As discussed supra, the subject matter pertains to the Act,
2007. The object of the said statute is to provide for more effective
provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior
citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the Objects and
Reasons of the said Act, it is stated that the traditional norms and
values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the
elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large
number of elderly are not being looked after by their family.
Consequently, their twilight years all alone and are exposed to
emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. The
19
same clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge
and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for
the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time
consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have
simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for
parents.
30. On consideration of the said aspects, Central Government
has promulgated the Act, which is summary in nature. Sometimes, the
said provisions are being misused. Taking advantage of the provisions
of the said Act, at the instance of the other children, the parents/senior
citizens are filing applications before the Maintenance Tribunal
claiming maintenance, cancellation of registered documents and
eviction of children. There is lot of criticism with regard to the misuse
of the said provisions.
31. As discussed supra, even in the present case, 3rd respondent
has executed similar gift settlement deeds in favour of
sons/respondents 6 and 7. She has also extended similar benefits in
favour of her other daughters/respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner is
daughter of 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent is seeking maintenance only
20
from the petitioner. She has filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.114 of
2012 against the petitioner and her husband seeking cancellation of
registered gift settlement deeds. The said suit was dismissed.
Thereafter she has preferred A.S.No.1092 of 2016. The same was
ended in compromise. Thus, she is pursuing her remedy only against
the petitioner. She is not pursuing her remedy against the other
daughters and sons i.e. respondents 4 to 7.
32. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated
03.12.2024, this Court suspended the impugned order on the condition
of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 paying the amount of
Rs.5,000/- each to the 3rd respondent towards her maintenance on or
before 10th of every month. In default, the said interim order shall
stand cancelled automatically.
33. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner herein that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner
has deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- into the account of 3rd
respondent i.e. 31448100017888 on 09.12.2024. It is also the specific
contention of the petitioner that 3rd respondent has closed the said
account. Therefore, she has obtained Demand Draft No.444429, dated
07.07.2025 for Rs.35,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Nalgonda
21
branch in favour of 3rd respondent. She has filed copies of the said
Demand Drafts and receipt along with memo vide USR No.71402 of
2025, dated 16.07.2025. The said aspects would reveal that 3rd
respondent is prosecuting the aforesaid litigation under the Act, 2007
at the instance of respondent Nos.4 to 7.
34. It is relevant to note that learned counsel for the petitioner
has handed over the said original Demand Drafts to the learned
counsel appearing for 3rd respondent in the open Court and learned
counsel, having received and acknowledged the said Demand Draft,
issued receipt to the learned counsel for the petitioner to the said
effect.
35. Without considering the said aspects, 2nd respondent passed
the aforesaid order, dated 12.08.2024 for cancellation of the aforesaid
gift settlement deeds and the same is confirmed by the 1st respondent
vide order dated 25.11.2024. Therefore, both the orders of 2nd and 1st
respondents are liable to be set aside.
36. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:-
i. The impugned order of 1st respondent dated 25.11.2024 and the
order dated 12.08.2024 of 2nd respondent are hereby set aside.
22
ii. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to
3rd respondent by way of transferring the said amount to the
account of 3rd respondent.
iii. 3rd respondent shall furnish account number, details of the bank
etc., to the petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
iv. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount of Rs.10,000/- per
month to 3rd respondent, on or before 10th of every month.
v. The petitioner shall take care of welfare of 3rd respondent.
Respondents 4 to 7 shall also take care of the welfare of the 3rd
respondent. If 3rd respondent fails to furnish the said bank
account details, the petitioner shall send the said amount
through Money Order or by way of taking Demand Draft
through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due.
vi. It is the duty of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 being
daughters and sons of 3rd respondent to take care of welfare of
3rd respondent as she is aged about 80 years.
23
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall
also stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:07-08-2025
Vvr