As seen in recent Bombay HC ruling, while law allows property transfer to be cancelled if child fails to provide for parents, latter often avoid legal recourse for fear of betraying family relationship
In India, many property transfers from ageing parents to their children are legally described as gifts. In practice, however, they often rest on an implicit understanding that the child will provide care and support in return. Indian law allows courts to recognise this understanding, but usually only after the relationship has broken down. The Bombay High Court’s recent decision upholding the cancellation of such a transfer after a son failed to care for his parents illustrates this contradiction.
Not really a gift
Under the Transfer of Property Act, a gift is unconditional. It requires no consideration and creates no obligation on the recipient. Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, however, departs from this principle. It allows a property transfer to be cancelled if a child who received it refuses or fails to provide for the parents’ basic needs.
Courts have repeatedly held that the issue is not simply the parent’s financial need, but whether the obligation to provide care that formed the basis of the transfer has been honoured. In effect, the law gives legal effect to what is formally a gift but functions as a contract-like exchange. This reflects an attempt to reconcile two competing ideas. On the one hand is the legal definition of a gift as an unconditional transfer. On the other is the social expectation that children who receive family property will care for ageing parents.
Also read: Marital rape: Why law in India doesn’t criminalise it despite constitutional guarantees
Rather than redefining the transaction, Section 23 allows courts to infer a condition that was never formally recorded. Few areas of property law permit courts to read such an implied condition into what is otherwise an unconditional transfer. Section 23 is unusual precisely because it allows family realities to override legal form.
Singapore, Australia examples
Other countries have taken a more direct approach. Singapore’s Maintenance of Parents Act openly converts what was once regarded as a moral responsibility into a legal obligation by allowing elderly parents to seek maintenance from children who can support them but refuse to do so. Australia also explicitly recognises arrangements in which older people transfer assets in return for accommodation and care under its property, contract, and social security rules. India, by contrast, continues to describe these transfers as gifts while allowing courts to recognise the contract-like understanding that underlies them when disputes arise.
The larger challenge, however, lies beyond legal doctrine. It concerns the ability of elderly parents to invoke the protection the law offers.
The reluctance to acknowledge the transaction for what it is reflects long-standing cultural assumptions. Care for ageing parents has traditionally been understood as a moral duty rather than an obligation that requires negotiation or documentation. Parents transfer property because they trust that care will naturally follow. One reason the arrangement often remains unwritten is that acknowledging it explicitly would suggest that family relationships are based on exchange rather than affection. As these expectations have become less reliable, the legal remedy has assumed greater importance.
Why parents avoid knocking court doors
The larger challenge, however, lies beyond legal doctrine. It concerns the ability of elderly parents to invoke the protection the law offers.
Lack of awareness is often cited as the main reason many elderly parents do not approach tribunals. Certainly, some may not know about the remedies available under the law. But awareness alone does not explain the delay. Many parents understand their legal rights and still hesitate to approach the authorities. The hesitation is psychological as much as legal.
Also read: How the anti-defection law lost its bite, and why Tamil Nadu will prove it
For many elderly parents, especially those raised in generations where family obligations outweighed individual rights, identity is rooted in relationships rather than legal entitlement. Filing a complaint requires them to become complainants against their own children and publicly acknowledge that a relationship they believed was unconditional has failed. In other words, social stigma reinforces this reluctance.
The law intervenes only after relationships have deteriorated beyond repair. By the time parents seek cancellation of a property transfer, neglect has usually become prolonged and repeated. The legal remedy is effective once the dispute reaches the tribunal.
Seeking legal action against one’s children is still widely viewed as a sign of family failure rather than a legitimate assertion of rights. The same stigma surrounds old-age homes and paid caregivers, which many families continue to see as evidence that children have abandoned their responsibilities. As a result, many elderly people tolerate neglect long after it has become serious. They may seek informal help through relatives or helplines, but avoid formal legal proceedings because doing so publicly confirms the collapse of family trust.
Delayed intervention
None of this diminishes the importance of Section 23. If anything, it underlines why the provision is necessary. A system based solely on counselling, persuasion, and appeals to family values leaves elderly parents dependent on the goodwill of those who may already have failed them. The law provides an enforceable remedy when moral expectations no longer work.
Also read: Midnight knock on court doors should be a right, not a privilege
However, the law intervenes only after relationships have deteriorated beyond repair. By the time parents seek cancellation of a property transfer, neglect has usually become prolonged and repeated. The legal remedy is effective once the dispute reaches the tribunal. It is far less effective in preventing the circumstances that make litigation necessary in the first place.
What needs to change?
This limitation will become increasingly important as India’s population ages. The number of people aged 60 and above is projected to reach around 319 million by 2050. A society with such a large elderly population cannot depend entirely on private family arrangements that become legally enforceable only after they collapse. It needs stronger social care systems, easier access to legal remedies, and greater public acceptance of the idea that elderly parents can assert their rights without being seen as abandoning family values.
Also read: Proving citizenship would be easier if pre-1987 rules existed today
The Bombay High Court’s judgment, therefore, raises a broader question than whether a property transfer can be cancelled. Should Indian law continue to describe these transactions as gifts while quietly enforcing the contract that lies beneath them? Unfortunately, until asserting legal rights ceases to be seen as a betrayal of family relationships, many elderly parents will seek the law’s protection only after every other option has failed.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
