BENGALURU: Law, religion and morality impose an obligation on the children to look after their parents – at least during the evening of their life – the high court observed in a recent judgment.
“This obligation becomes more vigorous when the children have taken the property of the parents by way of gift,” a division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit noted in their order while rejecting the writ appeal filed by a daughter and son-in-law.
“The liability to look after the aged father and mother is not a matter of charity, but a statutory obligation. The scriptures of this country, since millennia, have injuncted ‘rakshanti sthavire putra’, literally meaning that the sons should look after their parents in the evening of their life,” the bench observed.
Even the United Nations, vide its General Assembly Resolution 46/1991, adopted on December 16,1991, provides for the same, the bench further observed.
Appellant Kavitha R is the daughter of one Rajashekaraiah (now deceased) and Nirmala. Kavitha is married to one Yogesh, residents of Basavapatna village of Tumakuru district.
Through a gift deed dated September 28, 2018, Rajashekaraiah had given the property to his daughter. He later filed a petition before the assistant commissioner under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
He contended that his daughter and son-in-law had taken him to the tahsildar’s office on the pretext of formalising an old-age pension. He claimed they had also taken Rs 10 lakh from him for the construction of a house. Thereafter, they were forcing him to sell his property in order to clear their debts.
Following Rajashekaraiah’s complaint, Kavitha and Yogesh argued before the assistant commissioner that they were taking care of Rajashekaraiah and Nirmala and claimed to have spent Rs 30 lakh for the former’s medical treatment.

On February 24, 2021, the assistant commissioner noted that the gift deed contained a condition that Kavitha would take care of her father. The assistant commissioner also observed that the daughter and son-in-law had physically assaulted Rajashekaraiah and driven him and his wife out of the house. In view of the circumstances, he cancelled the gift deed.
Challenging the order, Kavitha and Yogesh argued they had spent a lot of money on Rajashekaraiah’s hospitalisation and that there was no justification for the assistant commissioner to invalidate the gift deed. The government advocate, who appeared for the assistant commissioner, however, supported the order of the single bench. After looking into the details of the case, the division bench declined to interfere. “We also note that many cases of harassment of parents do not come to light at all, for obvious reasons. This is not an acceptable development. Courts, authorities and tribunals have to be extra vigilant, and strict too, in matters like this. In societies with ageing populations, it becomes imperative to adjust to the increasing number of elderly individuals who possess a diverse range of functional capacities,” the bench observed.
“The capability to carry out essential functions and partake in everyday activities is influenced not solely by an individual’s inherent capacity, but also by the social and physical environments in which one resides. Supportive environments play a pivotal role in assisting older individuals to maintain their activity levels and independence as they age,” the bench added while upholding the single bench’s verdict.