Mumbai, May 29 -- Observing that a son had "left no stone unturned" in harassing his elderly mother "in her twilight years", the Bombay High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by him against an order of the senior citizens welfare tribunal in favour of his 67-year-old mother. The court also imposed "exemplary costs" of Rs.50,000 on the man "to discourage such challenges against welfare orders". The mother and son were at odds over land in Sangli left behind by the man's father who died in 2007. The Kolhapur bench of the court slammed the 46-year-old son for "depleting her meagre resources through persistent litigation." A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Deshmukh observed that the record demonstrated that the son "rather than fulfilling his natural and statutory duties, has chosen to drag an aged mother, a senior citizen through protracted and multi-layered litigation, depleting her resources and peace of mind in her twilight years". The high court was informed that the man's two sisters had signed relinquishment deeds related to the property in 2013 and his mother had similarly signed relinquishment deeds in 2015 and 2018 after which the property was transferred to the son. However, in 2020, he transferred a part of the land to his wife following a maintenance order passed by a family court. After this, the mother approached a civil judge and sought cancellation of her relinquishment deeds alleging fraud. She also filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (MWPSCA), 2007, before a senior citizens' welfare tribunal seeking maintenance from her son. The tribunal ruled in the mother's favour and asked the son to pay her monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 and cancelled the relinquishment deeds. On September 23, 2025, an appellate officer of the senior citizens welfare tribunal dismissed the son's challenge to the tribunal's order after which he moved the High Court. The son had said that his mother had made the relinquishment deeds voluntarily and they had no condition of maintenance. The court said the record clearly showed that the mother was dependent on the son for her emotional and physical well-being. The court said that even if the transfer of the land to the son through the relinquishment deed was voluntary, the tribunal had the power to declare it void, if the transferee (of a property) fails to fulfill his essential obligations because "property rights do not supersede the fundamental right to survival and dignity". The court must ensure that the primary aim and objective of the MWPSCA - to ensure the immediate protection and subsistence of the senior citizen - are met, Justice Deshmukh said. Section 23 of the Act, the court said, is a statutory safeguard designed to restore the property to a senior citizen when a transfer has been misused to leave them destitute or vulnerable. The court also said that by paying monthly maintenance to the mother, the son cannot seek the reversal of the tribunal's order cancelling his mother's relinquishment deeds. "To accept the petitioner's (son's) argument would allow a transferee to strip a parent of their life's assets and then seek to "buy off" the statutory protection of the parent's property rights."...