PANDIT ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SHARDA JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/respondent has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dtd. 12/1/2015 in Case No. B/1795 of 2014 before the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Sub.Divisional Magistrate and Designated Adjudicating Authority, as per the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at Secunderabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in the Case No. B/1795 of 2014 is the mother of the respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein. She has filed an application before the Designated Authority under the Act praying for protection by cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in favour of her son-respondent followed by a restraint order from unlawful interference by the respondent alleging that she is aged about 76 years, the respondent is her elder son, a legal practitioner, after the death of her husband she was to depend on her children, various issues have cropped up, she was enjoying a family pension of Rs.12,333.00 per month, besides monthly rentals of Rs.4,000.00 from the tenants. While things stood thus, in the end of December, 2007 and early 2008, the respondent started pressurising her to transfer the application schedule property perpetually on to his name, fraudulently obtained a registered gift deed document No.282 of 2008 on 24/1/2008 before the Sub- Registrar, Vallabnagar, Hyderabad. This document was executed after executing a deed of cancelation of general power of attorney on the same day. However, after obtaining the gift fraudulently, he neglected to look after the petitioner.

(3.) The Designated Authority has initiated the proceedings, constituted a three-member Committee as required under the Act for investigation and proper precautions to be initiated. The Committee has submitted their report with independent observations after ascertaining the truth from their independent sources. The Committee expressed unequivocal opinion that the petitioner, who is aged about 76 years old, justifies an order of protecting her right to live comfortably in her own home inherited from her late husband as per the provisions of the Act 2007.