In a strong assertion of parental rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the cancellation of a property transfer after a son did not provide care for his elderly mother and father, highlighting that property transfers under the Senior Citizens Act come with a binding obligation to provide care to elderly parents.The court noted that the father had specifically pleaded before the competent authority that the petitioner had requested transfer of the property upon the assurance that he would take care of him and his wife and would attend to their daily needs. This was not a case where the plea of maintenance or care was introduced at a later stage.Dealing with a plea of a son challenging the annulment, Justice Kirti Singh said that the very circumstance that senior citizens are increasingly compelled to invoke the process of law to secure basic care, protection and necessities from their own children is a matter of serious concern.“This court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted to ensure that the elderly are able to live with dignity, security and care,” the order said.Also Read | ‘Total lack of sensitivity’: Why Bombay High Court wants education official’s removalThe ruling emphasised that the provisions of such beneficial legislation must, therefore, be construed purposively and liberally, keeping in view the dignity of the aged and the legislative object sought to be achieved.Son challenged annulment of sale deed by fatherThe son approached the court challenging the orders of the sub-divisional magistrate, and the deputy commissioner, which annulled a property transfer made in his favour by his father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.The property was a factory shed measuring about 12 marlas and 28 square feet in Jalandhar’s Industrial Area. The petitioner’s father had acquired it in 2008 and transferred it to his son through a registered deed in July, 2017. The father alleged that he made the transfer after his son assured him that he would take care of him and his wife and meet their daily needs.Story continues below this adThe father later alleged that his son failed to care for him. He said that when he was hospitalised with tuberculosis in September 2020, his son did not properly look after him and, after that, compelled him to move to an old-age home.Appearing for the father, senior advocate Sunil Chadha, along with advocateTara Dutt, submitted that the son subjected him to abusive behaviour over business affairs and stopped taking care of him and his wife.Appearing for the petitioner-son, senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu, along with advocate Shiv Kumar Sharma, denied these allegations and argued that the authorities failed to appreciate the material facts and the defence raised by the petitioner.It was argued that the transfer deed did not contain any condition requiring him to provide basic amenities or physical needs to his father. It was claimed that he had cared for his father during his hospitalisation, paid his medical expenses, and provided him with an unsecured loan of about Rs 19 lakh for his business.Story continues below this adMaintenance condition must accompany transfer: OrderThe court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 requires a condition accompanying the property transfer that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the senior citizen. A subsequent failure to fulfil that condition forms the basis for annulment of the transfer.The court said that the existence of the maintenance condition should be examined in the context of the entire transaction, including the transfer deed, pleadings, surrounding circumstances and material placed before the competent authority, rather than merely looking for particular words in the deed.Although the 2017 transfer deed did not expressly state that the son would provide basic amenities and physical needs, the court noted that the father had specifically pleaded that the property was transferred on the assurance that his son would take care of him, his wife, and their daily needs.The court observed that the 2022 compromise could not retrospectively create a condition that did not exist when the property was transferred, but it could be considered as subsequent conduct while assessing the rival claims.Story continues below this adConsedering that facts of the case, the said that there is no ground for interference is made out, and, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.