AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Murari, CJ
Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
This intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 disposing of the writ petition directing respondents No.3 and 4 herein to pay the maintenance to the appellant No.1 Smt. Kuldip Kaur.
The proceedings arise out of a dispute under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the 2007 Act').
The facts in brief required to be noticed for adjudication of the controversy in hand can be summarized as under:-
Appellant No.1, who was the absolute owner of the agricultural land, executed a transfer/gift deed dated 03.10.2002 of land measuring 127 Kanals in equal shares in favour of her two sons, namely, Nirmal Singh (respondent No.3 herein) and the other son, namely, Harjinder Singh (respondent No.4 herein). When the sons stopped supporting her, she made an application under section 23 of the 2007 Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Tribunal, Tarn Taran for declaring the deed to be void on the ground that her two sons-the transferee have refused to maintain her. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.01.2016 set aside the transfer deed dated 03.10.2002 and directed payment of Rs.5000/- per month each by two sons to pay as maintenance.
Learned Single Judge finding that the provisions of the 2007 Act were in force in the State of Punjab w.e.f. 26.10.2012 and the deed having been executed much before the enforcement of the Act, set aside the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal to the extent it set aside/cancelled the transfer of gift deed. Learned Single Judge also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in case of Harvinder Kaur Bajwa v. The Appellate Tribunal, Panchkula, 2017(1) RCR (CIVIL) 853 (P&H), taking a view that the provisions of the Act do not have retrospective effect and hence the documents executed prior to the enforcement of the Act could not be declared invalid under the provisions of the Act. Learned Single Judge further proceeded to consider the question of grant of maintenance by her two sons, namely, respondents No.3 and 4 herein and accordingly made the following directions:-
"Here maintenance includes provisions for food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment. The necessities of life constitute maintenance. Thus respondent No. 3 has right to claim maintenance from her sons, namely, Nirmal Singh, petitioner and Harjinder Singh, respondent No.6. She is held entitled to claim maintenance from the already referred parties in the following manner from today i.e. from the date of passing of order:-
I. Petitioner-Nirmal Singh shall pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- (Seven Thousand) per month and respondent No.6, Harjinder Singh shall pay amount of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousand only) per month till the natural life of their mother.
II. Respondent No. 6-Harjinder Singh, shall further pay Rs. 2000/- (Two Thousand) per month as medical expenses and attendant expenses.
Further, the petitioner-Nirmal Singh has also given an undertaking to bear all the indoor medical expenses of his mother, respondent No.3 (Smt. Kuldip Kaur), in future as and when required. Payment as awarded in favour of respondent No.3 (Smt. Kuldip Kaur) shall be deposited by the petitioner and respondent No.6 regularly in the Bank account of their mother by any of the mode as recognized by the RBI Rules i.e. RTGS, cheque and draft etc.
In the light of the above discussion, the instant petition is disposed of accordingly in the terms, referred above."
Having gone through the impugned judgment and the facts of the case, we find no illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The part of the order declaring the deed as invalid has rightly been set aside because the provisions of the 2007 Act cannot be given a retrospective effect. Insofar as the issue of grant of maintenance is concerned, we again do not find any illegality nor any could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments on the basis whereof any interference can be made to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is thus devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.