How high court will see into this is not the question, the question is that how are you going to challenge her appeal pending before high court.

The point that she already has another house is very much valid and also one of her children is an adult this day, moreover she cannot be described as dependent on your father.

The law is very clear that if your father, a senior citizen was ignored especially after he had transferred all his property in favor of his children and if he had been made to suffer in destitute  then the law will come to his rescue, the cancellation of the gift deed to one of the properties should be viewed legally correct and valid in the eyes of appellate court, provided your lawyer puts up a strong argument in your father's favor. 

Even if the deed does not explicitly say "maintain," High Courts ) have ruled that when a senior citizen transfers property to a family member, it carries an inherent and implied condition of "love, affection, and care" in their old age. Neglecting or abandoning the father effectively voids the gift under Section 23 of the Act.

2)The fact that the gift deed explicitly mentions "out of love and affection" actually works in your father's favor. Courts interpret this phrasing as proof of an emotional, conditional family arrangement, rather than a purely commercial transaction.

3)the law focuses entirely on the survival, shelter, and health of the 75-year-old father. The fact that she possesses another property, and that the deceased son was already gifted a property, weakens her plea of severe destitution.

It is a pro senior citizen law if it is found that care is not taken then courts generally revokes the gift deed. But it is not a mandatory rule you can show that the same was not arbitrarily and deed is valid

Dear Client,

The High Court will primarily examine whether your father’s gift/settlement deed was absolute or conditional on the donee providing care/maintenance. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a gift by a senior citizen can be declared void if it was made subject to the condition that the transferee provides basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to provide that care. Even if the deed does not have an explicit maintenance clause but is worded as a settlement out of love and affection with the clear expectation that the son and daughter‑in‑law would care for your father, courts have often treated such transfers as conditional on care and allowed revocation when the donee neglects or abuses the elderly donor.

In your case, the daughter‑in‑law’s arguments of no explicit care clause, her livelihood will be affected, she has two children, and she has another property plus a gifted property from your father will be weighed, but the court’s primary focus is the protection of an elderly, vulnerable parent. The facts that your father is 75 years old, suffered serious health issues (diabetes, open‑heart surgery, psychiatric illness after your mother’s death), and has been forced into an old‑age home since 2019 with the daughter‑in‑law completely cutting off care and showing abusive behaviour strongly support revocation under the Senior Citizens Act if the court accepts that the transfer was intended for care. The existence of another property for her and the fact that your brother was already gifted another property will not automatically protect her claim, though the court may consider whether revoking the deed would leave her and the grandchildren without any means of livelihood and may frame the relief accordingly.

Overall, the High Court is likely to examine the original intent of the deed, consider the evidence of neglect, abuse, and forced institutionalisation, and may uphold the DRO’s cancellation if it finds that your father transferred the property expecting care and the daughter‑in‑law failed to provide it. The court will most likely prioritize your father’s right to maintenance and care under the Senior Citizens Act, even if the deed is not explicitly worded as a maintenance covenant, provided the evidence shows a conditional understanding grounded in the expectation of care and serious neglect.

I hope this helps and if you have any further issues do not hesitate to contact us.

From the facts stated by you, your father’s case appears to fall substantially within the protective object of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, provided the evidence establishes that the transfer was made with the expectation that the transferee or her family would provide care, maintenance, support, and security to him and that such expectation has been defeated by neglect or refusal to maintain him.

The argument of the daughter-in-law that there is no express clause in the gift deed requiring maintenance is not necessarily decisive. The law on Section 23 has evolved considerably, and courts have repeatedly held that the provision should be interpreted purposively to protect senior citizens from being deprived of their property and then abandoned. Several High Courts and the Supreme Court have recognized that an express maintenance clause is not always indispensable if the surrounding circumstances, relationship between the parties, nature of transfer, and conduct of the transferee establish that the transfer was made on the understanding that the senior citizen would be looked after.

In your father’s case, certain facts appear particularly significant. He was an elderly widower suffering from multiple medical conditions including diabetes, open-heart surgery complications, and psychiatric issues following the death of his wife. He transferred two properties to his son because he expected to live with him and be cared for by him and his family. After the son’s death, the daughter-in-law allegedly forced him into an old-age home and has not maintained any meaningful relationship or support since 2019. If these facts are proved through evidence, medical records, witnesses, old-age home records, correspondence, or other material, the Court may view the matter as one involving clear neglect and failure of the very purpose underlying the transfer.

The High Court is unlikely to decide the matter solely on the basis that cancellation may affect the daughter-in-law’s livelihood. While courts are sympathetic to widows and dependent children, the central issue under Section 23 is whether the transferee failed to discharge the obligation of maintaining the senior citizen after receiving the property. The Court will also consider the fact that one child is already an adult of about 20 years of age and that the daughter-in-law apparently possesses another property. If it is established that she is not being rendered homeless and has alternative means or assets, the argument of livelihood may lose considerable force.

Another factor that may weigh with the Court is proportionality and fairness. Your father apparently settled one property on you and two properties on your brother specifically because he expected personal care and support from the son with whom he would reside. If that expectation completely failed and he was ultimately compelled to reside in an old-age home, the Court may regard the transfer as having failed in its essential purpose.

That said, High Courts do not automatically affirm every cancellation order. The daughter-in-law may argue that she personally never undertook any legal obligation, that the transfer was absolute and unconditional, that the son who was expected to care for the father died in 2019, and that her own financial and family circumstances prevented her from providing support. The outcome will therefore depend heavily upon the wording of the settlement deed, the findings recorded by the DRO, the evidence of neglect, and whether the Court accepts that the transfer was intrinsically linked to the expectation of maintenance.

On the facts you have described, the case appears to be stronger for your father than for the daughter-in-law, particularly because the transferor is a very elderly and medically vulnerable person who has allegedly been residing in an old-age home for years despite having transferred substantial assets to the very family members from whom he expected care and support. The absence of an express maintenance clause is a point that can be argued by the daughter-in-law, but it is not necessarily fatal to your father’s claim if the surrounding circumstances clearly demonstrate neglect and failure of the underlying obligation to maintain him.

- As per Supreme Court , she is not entitled to get any property from her father-in-law due to mistreat and your father has right to right to evict her from all the properties even it was given to her husband. 

- Further , even if there is no clause of care given then also she has no right to occupy the said properties against the wishes of your father. 

- However, daughter-in-law's financial hardship on the ground of children may be considered, but it does not defeat the father's claim.

- Further , as the father is 75 years old then his stay in an old-age home can be strong ground for the cancellation of her petition. 

Daughter-in-law cannot be win on these grounds. the purpose of the Senior citizen act is very much clear in this respect which is the welfare of the senior citizen and her petition will be dismissed. No need to worry