MUMBAI, July 9 -- Children who fail to provide elderly parents with basic amenities in their twilight years can lose the property gifted to them by the parents, the Bombay high court observed on Tuesday. This applies even if the parents are financially independent, the court said. A division bench of acting chief justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice Gautam Ankhad was hearing a petition filed by a 42-year-old Lower Parel resident, challenging an order that directed him to hand over possession of a flat in Lower Parel to his 68-year-old father. The father, a jeweller had bought the flat in March 2005, where he lived with his wife, son and son's family. After 18 years, he gifted it to his son by executing a Gift Deed on May 8, 2023, on the condition that his son would provide him and his 60-year-old wife with basic amenities. However, the father claimed that their relation soured over time and eventually deteriorated to such an extent that the jeweller and his wife had to leave the premises in 2025, prompting him to approach the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. On April 13, 2026, the Tribunal ordered the son and his family to vacate the premises in 60 days and peacefully hand it over to his parents. The son then approached the high court, challenging the Tribunal order on multiple grounds, including that the 68-year-old was financially independent, had his own jewellery business and owned other immovable properties. "The respondents are neither destitute nor incapable of maintaining themselves," the son contended. The court, however, rejected the argument, saying that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 shows that the Tribunal can declare a gift of property void where the transfer is subject to a condition to provide the elderly parents with basic amenities and physical needs and the beneficiary has refused or failed to discharge the obligation. The fact that the parents were financially independent or possess other assets has no bearing on the law, the court said. "The applicability of Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior citizen," the bench said. "Once the statutory conditions of Section 23 are satisfied, the transfer can be declared as void," it added. The court noted that in the jeweller's case, the Gift Deed was executed with a specific condition that after its execution the son would take care of his elderly parents in all respects. Instead of the son ensuring security and care to his parents the relationship deteriorated to such an extent that the parents were compelled to vacate their own residence. "These facts clearly establish the petitioner's failure to fulfill the very obligation which constituted the foundation of the gift," the bench said, adding, "This is sufficient for invoking Section 23 of the Act." The high court rejected the petitioner's offer to now maintain his parents and accommodate them in the Lower Parel flat, saying it does not advance his case. "Such a belated and subsequent offer cannot revive a transfer which the statute deems to have been vitiated by fraud, coercion or undue influence," the court said, dismissing the petition....