top of page

By:

C.S. Krishnamurthy

21 June 2025 at 2:15:51 pm

Parents Before Property

The Bombay High Court’s recent decision upholding the cancellation of a gift deed executed by elderly parents in favour of their son is more than a legal victory. It is a timely reminder that parenthood cannot be reduced to a property transaction. By affirming that parents may revoke a property transfer when children fail to honour their obligation of care and support, the Court has reinforced a principle that is both legal and moral. The verdict in the Ashwin Ramesh Soni v. Ramesh Bachaulal...

Parents Before Property

The Bombay High Court’s recent decision upholding the cancellation of a gift deed executed by elderly parents in favour of their son is more than a legal victory. It is a timely reminder that parenthood cannot be reduced to a property transaction. By affirming that parents may revoke a property transfer when children fail to honour their obligation of care and support, the Court has reinforced a principle that is both legal and moral. The verdict in the Ashwin Ramesh Soni v. Ramesh Bachaulal Soni & Ors., reinforces the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court recognised that when parents transfer property with the legitimate expectation of being cared for, and that expectation is wilfully defeated, the law can restore justice. A gift founded on trust cannot survive when that trust is fundamentally breached. The judgement raises uncomfortable questions. What does it say about society when ageing parents must seek justice against their own children? Why should those who devoted a lifetime to raising families spend their twilight years proving that they deserve dignity? Have we begun to mistake inheritance for entitlement and affection for convenience? Changing Times These are not merely legal questions. They reflect the changing character of Indian families. India takes pride in its tradition of strong family bonds. Close-knit families, cherished traditions and an enduring culture of honouring parents have long defined our collective identity. Such images have long symbolised the country’s cultural strength. But growing reports of elder abuse present a sobering reality. Many parents experience neglect, emotional humiliation or isolation within homes they built. Some are confined to a single room after transferring property. Others are abandoned altogether. The emotional trauma often outweighs the financial loss. The ruling recognises what may be called an unwritten family contract. Parents spend decades sacrificing personal comforts to educate children, fund their ambitions, conduct weddings and build family assets. In return, they expect not luxury but companionship, care, respect and emotional security. By acknowledging that certain family transactions rest on mutual trust rather than legal formalities alone, the Court has reaffirmed that the law will protect vulnerable senior citizens when that trust is exploited. Reports frequently describe retired parents evicted from homes gifted to children, widowed mothers fighting prolonged legal battles for shelter, and elderly couples seeking police protection against their own offspring. Many such cases remain hidden because families fear social stigma more than personal suffering. Family Trust The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted precisely because traditional family safeguards were proving inadequate. Section 23 empowers authorities to declare property transfers void when they are made on the understanding that the recipient will provide for the transferor's basic needs, but subsequently fails to do so. The verdict has given practical meaning to this safeguard by making it clear that the law will not remain a silent spectator when trust is betrayed. Some critics argue that legal intervention weakens family relationships. The opposite is true. Good laws exist not because every family fails but because some do. Just as traffic laws protect responsible drivers from reckless ones, laws safeguarding parents protect families from exploitation without diminishing genuine affection. But society also has responsibilities. Financial advisers should caution senior citizens against transferring valuable assets prematurely. In many situations, a well-drafted will offers greater protection than an outright gift deed. Where property is transferred during one's lifetime, expectations regarding care and maintenance should be clearly documented to minimise future disputes. Children should remember that caring for ageing parents is not charity. It is gratitude expressed through everyday actions. I recall meeting an elderly gentleman at a bank several years ago. He proudly showed me documents transferring his house to his only son and remarked with complete confidence, “Now I have no worries. My son will take care of everything.” His face reflected absolute trust. Thankfully, countless children justify such trust every day. But when that faith is broken, the emotional consequences can be devastating. Indian culture has long viewed caring for parents as a privilege, not a burden. Honouring parents goes beyond living together. A caring phone call, a visit during illness, financial support or shared moments can bring comfort, dignity and belonging. Loneliness often wounds seniors more deeply than disease. When parents must approach courts for protection from their own children, it is time for society to introspect. (The writer is a retired banker and author. He can be reached at krs1957@hotmail.com. Views personal.)

Drawn Lines

For years, India’s eastern frontier has been a study in political evasiveness. While past governments spoke of illegal immigration and border security, their actions rarely matched their rhetoric. That era now appears to be definitively ending.


With the BJP now in power across the states adjoining Bangladesh, India’s political message is now unmistakable. For the newly installed BJP government in West Bengal under Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, border management is no longer a peripheral issue but a top governing priority.


The recent transfer of land for fencing in the strategically vital Chicken’s Neck corridor, the acceleration of long-pending infrastructure projects and the renewed emphasis on identifying and deporting illegal immigrants signal a fundamental shift in policy.


Every sovereign state possesses the right and has the obligation to know who enters its territory and who remains within it. That is particularly true in eastern India, where concerns about illegal immigration from Bangladesh have shaped political discourse for decades. For long, entire political careers were built on this issue.


For years, the issue was entangled in the politics of appeasement. The erstwhile Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government had repeatedly prioritising vote-bank considerations over robust border management, dismissing concerns about infiltration as politically motivated. The new administration under Suvendu Adhikari has chosen a markedly different course. By accelerating fencing projects, facilitating security infrastructure and backing stricter enforcement, it has made clear that border security is a core responsibility of the state.


The importance of the Chicken’s Neck corridor alone justifies heightened vigilance. Barely 22 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, this strip of land links the Indian mainland to the eight northeastern states. Any security planner examining a map of India immediately understands its significance.


Nor is border fencing some extraordinary measure. Around the world, nations erect barriers to combat illegal migration, trafficking and smuggling. A fence is not a declaration of hostility but an assertion of jurisdiction. Countries have borders precisely because they are expected to regulate movement across them.


This is why any future attempt by Bangladesh to internationalise the issue - whether through multilateral forums or appeals to international bodies - would be deeply misguided. No principle of international law grants one country the authority to veto how another secures its frontier.


If individuals identified through due process as Bangladeshi nationals are being repatriated, why should Bangladesh object to receiving them?


Credit must go to the central government and the new administration in West Bengal for treating border security as a matter of governance rather than a slogan.


Borders are expressions of statehood itself. A nation unwilling to secure them invites infiltration, smuggling and lawlessness. A nation unwilling to acknowledge them ultimately erodes the very meaning of citizenship. The effort currently underway to fence the Indo-Bangladesh border is the long-overdue assertion of our state’s most elementary duty: to decide who may enter its territory and who may not.


Comments

bottom of page