Can son keep gifted house if he neglects mother? Calcutta High Court draws line while delivering ‘moral’ verdict

Court steps in to protect mother’s dignity

• The police authorities will ensure that the mother is kept in comfort and the order of this court is complied with.
• The day the mother wants to return to the premises, she will inform the local police station and the inspector-in-charge of the local police station will ensure that the mother is put in possession.
• We are conscious of the fact that this is beneficial legislation and the son’s obligation to maintain the mother is irrespective of whether there is any deed of gift or not.
• Under such circumstances, we uphold the order of the single judge upon carefully perusing the reasons afforded.
• We direct that the mother will be allowed to enter the premises and shall continue to reside in the premises till the end of her life.
• We are of the view that the conditions for the enforcement of Section 23 (transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, do not exist in the particular case and the trial judge rightly held so.
• The trial judge did not make any provision for maintenance of the mother, which the mother is entitled to under the statute, as also under the moral obligation of the son.
• We also find that the presiding officer did take into consideration whether either of the two conditions existed for declaring the deed partly void, i.e., to the extent of the share of the mother.
• The mother’s share has not been specifically demarcated in the deed of gift.

Hearing a plea by Niva Basu, a septuagenarian widow, Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta directed the son to take care of his mother.

Why court refused to void gift deed

• The Calcutta High Court, while sympathetic to the mother’s situation, held that the law required a clear, enforceable condition in the gift deed linking the transfer to the son’s obligation to maintain his parents.
• Mere mention of the fact that the son was looking after his parents in deed of gift, did not constitute a covenant that the deed of gift was subject to the condition that the maintenance would continue forever, the court said.
• The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2024).
• In this case, the parents had gifted the property out of trust and affection, without attaching such a condition, leaving the court with little room to invalidate the deed.

What the court heard

• The court was hearing an appeal against a July 28, 2025 order of a single judge, which had set aside a decision of the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens that had once come as relief to the mother.
• The tribunal had earlier declared the property transfer partially void and directed the son’s family to vacate the portion occupied by them—an order rooted in the mother’s plea that she had been neglected in her old age.
• But that relief was overturned by the single judge, leading the mother to approach the division bench.

Key legal finding

• The Calcutta High Court underscored a delicate balance.
• A gift made out of love cannot be undone in the absence of a clear legal condition.
• But a child’s duty to care for a parent does not vanish with the transfer of property.
• Even as it upheld the legal reasoning of the trial court, the bench noted that the mother remained entitled to maintenance both under statute and under the deeper moral fabric of family life.
• The court acknowledged that the law could not undo the transfer of property but made it clear that a mother’s right to live with dignity cannot be reduced to a mere omission in paperwork.

Background of dispute

• Niva Basu had approached the tribunal alleging that despite transferring property to her son, she was not being properly maintained.
• The tribunal had initially ruled in her favour, offering her a measure of protection in what was, at its core, a deeply personal conflict.
• However, both the single judge and the division bench ultimately found that the legal requirements under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 were not fulfilled, as the deed lacked an explicit maintenance clause.

Final outcome

• The Calcutta High Court disposed of the appeal by modifying the earlier order upholding the gift deed, but ensuring that the mother is not left without care, shelter, or dignity in her twilight years.
• There was no order as to costs.

Why this ruling matters

• This ruling speaks not just to law, but to lived realities.
• It reinforces that legal rights depend on clear conditions, not assumptions of care.
• Yet, it affirms that courts will not turn away when an elderly parent’s dignity is at stake.
• In doing so, the judgment reflects a broader truth, property may change hands, but responsibility does not.