Bengaluru: After husband’s death, wife enjoying family property through a gift deed is not mandated to take care of her mother-in-law, Karnataka high court has ruled, holding that if the gift deed didn’t explicitly list her responsibilities.If the gift deed had built in a condition clearly requiring the daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law, then the death of the son would not have changed that obligation. “Where no such condition exists, tribunals cannot create one retrospectively merely because family circumstances have changed,” the court said, setting aside a Hassan tribunal’s order of March 5, 2026.The court made the observation, allowing a petition filed by S Sheela, from Belur taluk in Hassan district, challenging the tribunal order directing her to “face consequences” for not attending to the needs of her mother-in-law BK Nanjamma, who is 81 now, under the Senior Citizens Act.Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the high court observed, a tribunal cannot create a maintenance obligation that is clearly absent from the gift deed or the statutory requirements of the provision.In 2010, Nanjamma executed a gift deed relating to certain properties. However, Nanjamma challenged the deed before a civil court, alleging it had been obtained through fraud. The civil court rejected her case in 2016.Later, Nanjamma approached Senior Citizens Act tribunal, seeking the deed’s cancellation. The assistant commissioner of Sakaleshpur, acting as the tribunal, ruled in her favour on March 5, 2026. Sheela challenged the order before the high court.Sheela argued that her husband died in 2022 and she had been struggling to support herself and her children without an independent source of income. She pointed out Nanjamma was receiving a monthly pension of Rs 40,000 and was “financially capable” of supporting herself.The high court found inconsistency in Nanjamma’s claims. While she claimed before civil court that the gift deed was obtained through fraud, she later relied on the same deed while seeking maintenance-related relief from the tribunal.Justice Govindaraj observed that these were contradictory factual positions. If the gift deed had been upheld by civil court, the tribunal could not proceed on the assumption it was obtained through fraud, coercion or undue influence..
