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.)

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page