The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to Central government on a plea by a 97-year-old man challenging the constitutional validity of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007..The petition was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad which listed the case for further consideration on December 13..Section 23 (1) states that if a senior citizen, after the coming into force of the Act, transfers his property to another person, then that person will take care of the basic amenities and basic physical needs of the transferor.However, the petition argued that this benefit is not available to the senior citizens who transferred their properties before the implementation of the Act..“...the obligation on the persons inheriting the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives is confined only in respect of transfers effected after the commencement of the Act and thus affords the benefit to the senior citizens who transfer the property after the commencement of the Act, whereas similarly situated senior citizens who had effected transfer of their property to their wards (with identical conditions of maintenance) and who have been deserted by the transferees, are denied this valuable benefit of having the transfer declared as void,” the plea argued.It further said that the term “after commencement of the Act” created an artificial division which leads to discrimination amongst similarly situated persons and, therefore, goes against the provisions of the Constitution as well as the object of the Act.
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to Central government on a plea by a 97-year-old man challenging the constitutional validity of Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007..The petition was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad which listed the case for further consideration on December 13..Section 23 (1) states that if a senior citizen, after the coming into force of the Act, transfers his property to another person, then that person will take care of the basic amenities and basic physical needs of the transferor.However, the petition argued that this benefit is not available to the senior citizens who transferred their properties before the implementation of the Act..“...the obligation on the persons inheriting the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives is confined only in respect of transfers effected after the commencement of the Act and thus affords the benefit to the senior citizens who transfer the property after the commencement of the Act, whereas similarly situated senior citizens who had effected transfer of their property to their wards (with identical conditions of maintenance) and who have been deserted by the transferees, are denied this valuable benefit of having the transfer declared as void,” the plea argued.It further said that the term “after commencement of the Act” created an artificial division which leads to discrimination amongst similarly situated persons and, therefore, goes against the provisions of the Constitution as well as the object of the Act.