WP-8479-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.8479 OF 2023

Bhausaheb Mhatarji Kadve

Aged 65 years, Indian Inhabitant

Occ.: Retired, R/o. Room No. B-407

Jeevan Vihar, Jaideep Nagar,

Bhandup (East), Mumbai - 400 042 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Additional Collector

The Appellate Authority under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

And Senior Citizens Act, 2007,

Having its o�ce at Administrative

Building, 9th �oor, Govt. Colony,

Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051

2. The Sub-Divisional o�cer

And the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

And Ex-O�co, Senior Citizen,

Subsistence Authority, Eastern Suburbs

Mumbai, Suburban District,

Neelkanth Business Park, A Building,

Ground Floor, Kirol Road, Vidyavihar West,

Mumbai-400 086

3. Kalpana Bhausaheb Kadve

Aged 54 years, Indian Inhabitant

Occ.: Retired, R/o. Room No. B-407

Jeevan Vihar, Jaideep Nagar, Bhandup (East),

Mumbai-400 042

4. Kishori Dinesh Pansare

nee Miss Kishori Bhausaheb Kadve

SQ Pathan 1/19

SHAGUFTA

QUTBUDDIN

PATHAN

Digitally

signed by

SHAGUFTA

QUTBUDDIN

PATHAN

Date:

2026.02.20

16:00:56

+0530

WP-8479-2023.odt

Aged 32 years, Indian Inhabitant.

Occ.: Service, Kalika Mata CHS Ltd.

Near Kalika Mata Temple, Kakasaheb

Gadgil Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028

5. Mrs. Sneha Abhijit Gahilot

Nee Ms. Sneha Bhausaheb Kadve

Aged 29 years, Indian Inhabitant

Occ.: House-wife, R/o. Jay Chittod,

Saraswati Colony, Hingoli,

Dist-Hingoli - 431513 )

6. State of Maharashtra

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032

Through its Government Pleader … Respondents

___________________

Mr. Shashank Thatte a/w Ms. Chaitali Jadhav and Mr. Yuvaraj Takale for

the Petitioner

Mr. Asif Patel, Addl. G.P a/w Mr. S. H. Babar, A.G.P for the Respondent-

State

Ms. Pavitra Manesh for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

___________________

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

RESERVED ON : 12

th

FEBRUARY 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 20

th

FEBRUARY 2026

JUDGMENT :

1 Rule. With consent of parties, rule made returnable

forthwith and taken up for �nal hearing.

2 By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 7

th

SQ Pathan 2/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

December 2022 passed in Appeal No. 6 of 2020 by the Respondent

No.1, i.e., the Additional Collector, the Appellate Authority under

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007 (for short, “Senior Citizens Act”), except the operative relief

in Clause No. 3 of the imugned order.

3 The present petition seeks several relies in nature of

directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who are private parties and

are outside the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Respondent No. 3 is the wife of the Petitioner, and Respondent

Nos.4 and 5 are the married daughters of the Petitioner. Learned

Counsel for Petitioner has con�ned his submissions to assail the

impugned order and have not pressed for the other reliefs and

rightly so.

4 Brie�y stated, the facts of the case are that on 10

th

December 2019, the Petitioner �led an application under Section

22 of the Senior Citizens Act against the Respondent No. 3, who is

the wife of the Petitioner. In the original application before the

Respondent No 2, the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the

SQ Pathan 3/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

daughters of the Petitioner, were not arrayed as parties. The

application alleges harassment at the hands of the Respondent No.

3, since the solmenisation of marriage on 1

st

June 1990 and sets

out various instances of mental and physical cruelty at the hands of

the Respondent No. 3 and her relatives.

5 It is pleaded that the residential premises, being Flat

No. B-205 in Sweety Apartments, Pune, was purchased by the

Petitioner in the name of the Respondent No. 3’s mother on 2

nd

March 1995 due to constant pressure and persistence of the

Respondent No. 3. It is stated that the said premises was given on

a Leave and License basis by the Respondent No. 3’s mother since

May 1995, and the bene�ts are utilized by the mother and brother

of the Respondent No. 3. By a registered Gift Deed, on 19

th

August

2015, the �at was transferred in the name of the Respondent No.

3, and the expenses of stamp duty and registration were borne by

the Petitioner.

6 Another premises bearing Flat No.210 was purchased

on 27

th

May 1999 at Bhayandar out of funds which were deposited

SQ Pathan 4/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

by the Petitioner in the account of Respondent No. 3, which �at

came to be sold on 24

th

August 2005, and the entire amount was

deposited in the account of Respondent No. 3. Out of sale

proceeds the residential premises was purchased at Friends Colony,

Bhandup in the name of Respondent No. 3. It is claimed that the

monthly compensation received from these two �ats is being

utilized by the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 has

handed over possession of the gold jewellery bought out of

earnings of the Petitioner to the elder daughter. It is pleaded that

false police complaints have been �led by the Respondent No. 3

against the Petitioner.

7 It is further claimed that the Respondent No. 3 had

assaulted the Petitioner in the year 2015 and have attempted to

poison the Petitioner. The Petitioner was diagnosed with cancer

but did not receive any �nancial assistance from the Respondent

No. 3 and the daughters. The entire marriage expenses of the

daughters have been borne by the Petitioner. With thes e

pleadings, the relief sought by the Petitioner before the Senior

Citizens Tribunal was protection, injunction against Respondent

SQ Pathan 5/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

No. 3 from creating third party rights in respect of the two �ats at

Pune and Bhandup, as these properties have been purchased by

the Petitioner in the name of Respondent No. 3, for transfer of

both �ats in name of Petitioner, eviction of tenants, for payment of

entire rent received from both the �ats since date of purchase and

compensation and litigation expenses. The Petitioner also sought

injunction against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from obstructing the

sale of Jeevan Vihar, Bhandup �at which stood in name of the

Petitioner.

8 Vide order dated 31

st

December 2019, the Respondent

No.2, Sub-Divisional O�cer, rejected the application, observing

that under Senior Citizens Act, relief which can be granted is of

maintenance and the Petitioner was receiving pension. It held that

the complaint against the wife or about ownership of property is

not within the purview of the Senior Citizens Tribunal and is in the

nature of domestic violence, for which an appropriate application

be �led before the appropriate forum, and disposed of the

application.

SQ Pathan 6/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

9 As against this, an appeal came to be �led before the

Respondent No.1, the Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned

order dated 7

th

December 2022, the Appellate Authority

considered the reliefs which could be granted under Senior Citizens

Act. It observed that the Petitioner himself has stated that he has

never made any request for maintenance. It further observed that

the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were the daughters, were not

impleaded in the original proceedings, and it is at the �nal stages

of hearing that an application was made to implead the

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which came to be allowed. The Appellate

Authority considered the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior

Citizens Act, and noted that the property at Pune had �rstly been

purchased in the name of mother of the Respondent No. 3, which

later on came to be transferred in the name of the Respondent No.

3 by way of Gift Deed, and that the property at Bhandup has been

purchased in the name of Respondent No. 3. It noted that it is not

a transfer by the Petitioner by way of gift or otherwise, on the

condition of the transferee providing the basic amenities. It noted

that if there is any objection with regard to the validity/legality of

the registered documents, then the appropriate forum is the Civil

SQ Pathan 7/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

Court. With these �ndings, the appeal came to be partially allowed.

Vide clause (3) of the impugned order, the Authority restrained the

Respondent Nos.3 to 5 from creating any obstacles in the

execution of the sale of the Bhandup �at, which is the ownership

�at of the Petitioner, as per the registered document.

10 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would

submit that the Appellate Authority has failed to take into

consideration the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act,

which gives an overriding e�ect to the enactment. He submits that

the Petitioner is a senior citizen su�ering from various ailments

and has su�ered cruelty and threat to life from the Respondent

No. 3, which constitutes violation of Article 21. He would further

submit that the Petitioner is in dire �nancial need and desires to

sell the Bhandup �at to shift to Aurangabad, which has been

obstructed by Respondent No. 3. He would submit that though the

Petitioner has paid for the purchase of the �at at Pune and the �at

at Friends Colony, Bhandup, Respondent No. 3 has usurped the

Petitioner's hard-earned assets. He would point out the pleadings

in the application to contend that the �ats at Pune and Friends

SQ Pathan 8/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

Colony, Bhandup, have been purchased out of the funds of the

Petitioner. He would submit that the Respondent No. 3 has

attempted to administer poison to the Petitioner, for which, FIR has

been lodged with the Kanjur Marg Police Station. He would submit

that the Jeevan Vihar �at at Bhandup is the ownership �at of the

Petitioner, possession of which has been protected by the

impugned order. He submits that despite the Petitioner's physical

ailments, the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have failed to make any

�nancial arrangements and have committed cruelty by theft of life-

saving medical equipment. He would further submit that the

Respondents are making false allegations of Petitioner’s mental

illness, whereas the Petitioner is a retired Gazetted O�cer. He

submits that the alleged Gift Deed from the Respondent No. 3’s

mother to Respondent No. 3 is an arrangement to deprive the

Petitioner of his property. He submits that the Respondent No.4,

who is the elder daughter, is in collusion with the Respondent No.

3, and it is only the Respondent No.5, the younger daughter, who is

supporting the Petitioner, as a result of which the Petitioner has

gifted the Jeevan Vihar �at at Bhandup to the Respondent No. 5.

In support, he relies upon the following decisions:

SQ Pathan 9/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

(i) Nayana Sudhir Shah & Ors. vs. Sudhir Premji Shah &

Ors.

1

(ii) Ramkrishna Pandey S/o Late Shivprasad Pandey & Anr.

vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector & Ors.

2

(iii) Sri Venkataiah vs. The State of Karnataka

3

(iv) Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.

4

11 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the application itself was not

maintainable before the Respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional O�cer,

as the Petitioner had impleaded only his wife, i.e., Respondent

No. 3. She would further submit that the reliefs sought in the

application are beyond the purview of the Senior Citizens Act. She

submits that it is only during the hearing of the appeal that the

Petitioner �led an application for impleading the Respondent Nos.

4 and 5, who are the daughters, which came to be allowed, though

not maintainable. She submits that the authorities have rightly

held that the reliefs which are sought by the Petitioner, do not fall

within the ambit of Section 23 and that no maintenance has been

1 Civil WP No.7982/2018 dated 19/05/2020

2 WA No.103/2026 dated 03/02/2026

3 WP No.13313/2025 dated 02/02/2026

4 Civil Appeal No.10927/2024 dated 02/01/2025

SQ Pathan 10/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

claimed. She submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no

objection to clause (3) of the impugned order, as the �at at Jeevan

Vihar, Bhandup, is the ownership �at of the Petitioner. As far as the

other two �ats are concerned, the said properties stand in the

name of the Respondent No. 3, and no injunction order can be

passed in respect of those two �ats.

12 I have considered the submissions and perused the

record.

13 The stated object of the Senior Citizens Act is to make

more e�ective provision for the maintenance and welfare of the

parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the

Constitution and for matters connected therewith. Section 4

governs the maintenance of parents and senior citizens and

provides that a senior citizen including parent who is unable to

maintain himself from his own earnings or out of the property

owned by him, is entitled to make an application under Section 5, in

case of a parent or grandparent against one or more of his children

not being a minor and a childless senior citizen, against such of his

SQ Pathan 11/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

relative referred to in clause (g) of Section 2. Clause (g) of Section

2 de�nes a “relative” to mean any legal heir of the childless senior

citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit

his property after his death. The Respondent No. 3 is the wife of

the Petitioner, and as the Petitioner is not childless, Respondent

No. 3 would not fall within the de�nition of “relative” for claiming

maintenance. The statutory provisions indicate that for purpose of

claiming maintenance, it is only the children or relative falling

within the de�nition of Section 2(g), who can be impleaded. In the

present case, there is no claim for maintenance.

14 The position, however, is di�erent in the case of

Section 23, which �nds place in Chapter V of the Senior Citizens Act

and governs the protection of the life and property of senior

citizens. The said provision provides for a transfer of property to be

declared void in certain circumstances. Section 23 provides that

where any senior citizen 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, on which the transferee has defaulted, the

SQ Pathan 12/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

transfer of the property shall be deemed to have been made by

fraud, or coercion, or under undue in�uence and shall, at the

option of the transferor, be declared void by the Tribunal. The

provisions of Section 23 do not use the expression “children”

“grandchildren” or “relative” but uses the expression “transferee”

which will include every person to whom the senior citizen has

transferred his property. The restrictions which are applied to a

claim for maintenance do not �nd place in Section 23 which uses

the wide term “transferee.” The application, if seeking relief in

terms of Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act would be maintainable

against the wife provided that there is transfer of property in

favour of transferee by the senion citizen.

15 The sine qua non for invocation of Section 23 of Senior

Citizens Act is that the ownership property of a senior citizen has

been transferred, in any manner whatsoever, subject to the

condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs, and that

there is a failure or default in ful�lling such assurance. In the

present case, what the Petitioner seeks, under the guise of

injunctive reliefs, is in substance a declaration of ownership in

SQ Pathan 13/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

respect of the two properties, which relief is clearly outside the

ambit of the Senior Citizens Act. No statutory provision has been

demonstrated which empowers the Senior Citizens Tribunal to

order transfer of property which is not the ownership property of

the senior citizen in the �rst place. It is the Petitioner’s own case

that, insofar as the property at Pune is concerned, the registered

sale document was in the name of the mother of the Respondent

No. 3, which �at has been gifted to the Respondent No. 3 by her

mother and the registered sale document in respect of �at at

Friends Colony, Bhandup, is in the name of the Respondent No. 3.

The admitted position is that the registered documents in respect

of the said two properties stand in the name of the Respondent

No. 3, one by way of a Gift Deed from the Respondent No. 3’s

mother and the other under the sole ownership of the Respondent

No. 3. Therefore, there is no case of application of Section 23 of the

Senior Citizens Act.

16 The Petitioner’s claim for ownership right in the

properties is premised on the ground that the consideration in

respect of the said two premises was paid by him, in which case the

SQ Pathan 14/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

remedy of the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for seeking

declaration of his right, title, and interest in these properties. The

reliefs which can be granted under the provisions of the Senior

Citizens Act are relief for maintenance, which has not been sought,

and the relief of the transfer being declared void by the Tribunal,

which is also not the relief sought in the present case. The relief of

injunction against the Respondent No. 3 qua the �at at Pune and

the room at Bhandup would entail an inquiry into the ownership

rights of the two premises, which is outside the purview of the

Senior Citizens Act.

17 The reliance on Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act is

misplaced, as the same gives an overriding e�ect to the Senior

Citizens Act, in event of any con�ict between the Senior Citizens

Act and the other enactments. In the present case, there is no

con�ict which is demonstrated between the Senior Citizens Act and

other enactment to press into service the provisions of Section 3.

18 Now dealing with the decisions relied upon by the

Petitioner:

SQ Pathan 15/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

In the case of Nayana Sudhir Shah & Ors. vs. Sudhir

Premji Shah & Ors. (supra), the Petitioner had impleaded his wife

and major children claiming that the self-acquired properties of the

Respondent No.1 therein, have been fraudulently dealt with by the

Petitioners therein, dispossessing the Respondent No. 1 of his

business property and fraudulently registered tenancy agreement

and leave and license agreement. The learned Single Judge

considered the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and the

admitted position on record that the subject properties involved

therein were the self-acquired properties of the Respondent No.1,

who had exclusive rights in the said property and that the subject

property was occupied by the Petitioners. It is in this factual

scenario that the learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by

the Tribunal declaring the Power of Attorney, the Deed o f

Partnership, Agreements, etc., as void. The decision is clearly

distinguishable in facts, as, in the present case, the registered

document in respect of the subject properties stands in the name

of the Respondent No. 3, and therefore, there is no case of a

fraudulent transfer of the properties herein.

SQ Pathan 16/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

19 In Ramkrishna Pandey S/o Late Shivprasad Pandey &

Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector & Ors. (supra),

the Respondents therein had �led an application under Sections 5

and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act against the nephew of the

Respondent No. 2 and the daughter of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

for claiming maintenance and for declaration that the Gift Deed

executed in favour of the nephew be declared as void. The facts

therein are completely di�erent, and there is no quarrel with the

proposition of law which has been laid down in the said case.

However, it is the applicability of the said decision to the present

case, which is doubtful as the facts are clearly distinguishable.

20 The next decision of Sri Venkataiah vs. The State of

Karnataka (supra) arose out of a claim seeking annulment of Gift

Deed, which came to be dismissed. The Petitioner therein was the

father of Respondent No.5 and grandfather of Respondent No. 6

and was the absolute owner of the agricultural land. It was his

speci�c case that his daughters had assured him that they would

take care of his maintenance, well-being and daily needs and had

fraudulently procured the Gift Deed and thereafter defaulted on

SQ Pathan 17/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

their assurances. In the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Court

considered the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act

and examined the validity of the orders which rejected the

application on the ground that the Gift Deed did not contain a

speci�c clause regarding maintenance of the Petitioner. The facts

make it clear that the decision is inapplicable to the present case.

21 Insofar as the decision in the case of Urmila Dixit vs.

Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the appellant

before the Hon’ble Apex Court was the mother of the Respondent,

and was the owner of the subject property. The property was

gifted by the appellant therein in favour of her son, and in the Gift

Deed, it was stated that the son shall maintain the appellant

therein. As subsequently, a dispute arose, an application was �led

for setting aside the Gift Deed in question, which came to be

annulled. In these facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the

provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and held that the

Tribunal is empowered to order eviction where such a course is

necessary in furtherance of the objects of the Act. It was observed

that the provision enables senior citizens to secure their rights

SQ Pathan 18/19

WP-8479-2023.odt

expeditiously in cases where property has been transferred subject

to the condition that the transferee shall maintain them. The said

decision is distinguishable on facts and is inapplicable in the

present case.

22 The Respondent No.1 has rightly considered the

provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, as well as the

facts of the case, to come to a �nding that the properties at Pune

and Friends Colony, Bhandup, have not been transferred by the

Petitioner but, in fact, have been purchased in the name of the

Respondent No. 3, and in the event of any objection to the validity

of the registered documents, the appropriate forum is the Civil

Court.

23 In light of the above discussion, I do not �nd any reason

to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the

petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

SQ Pathan 19/19