JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, impugning the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Act), has approached this court. 2. The petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The third respondent executed a settlement deed on 2.8.2011 settling 49 cents of land in favour of the petitioner. The land comprised a residential building. In the settlement itself, reservation was made in favour of the settler, the third respondent and his wife, to reside in the house during their life time. 3. The third respondent filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Act to declare that the transfer of the property is void in terms of Section 23. The Tribunal allowed the application. 4. In the order, after adverting to the rival claims, the Tribunal was of the view that the settlement deed had to be declared as void, without entering into any definite findings that the petitioner failed to provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the third respondent. The question is, 'what are the circumstances under which a document can be declared as void'. Section 23 of the Act is clear in the circumstances under which a document can be declared as void. Two conditions have to be satisfied, they are, that the transferee at the time of transfer agreed to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and secondly, the transferee had refused or failed to provide such basic amenities and physical needs after the transfer. 5. This court in Radhamani v State of Kerala ( 2016(1) KLT 185 ) had held that the condition referred in Section 23 has to be understood based on the conduct of the transferee and not necessary, with respect to the specific conditions in the deed of transfer. The settlement deed is executed based on love and affection. This means that the transferor expects in the natural course of human conduct from the transferee, that he would continue to be treated in the same manner as he was, before the execution of the deed. In Radhamoni's case(supra), this court had observed as follows: “The love and affection influenced for execution of the deed certainly must be enduring and without any barrier. In Radhamoni's case(supra), this court had observed as follows: “The love and affection influenced for execution of the deed certainly must be enduring and without any barrier. The human conduct in relation to a particular relation is presumed to exist in all set of circumstances for governing relationship of those individuals. Transferee cannot disown his own action of love and affection after the transfer comes into effect. The transfer itself being based on love and affection, that would form part as a condition of the transaction for future conduct as well. Thus, in the absence of any other circumstances to dispel, it must be presumed that transferor expects continuation of the care and love from the transferee even after execution of the deed in same manner, he was taken care prior to execution of the deed.” 6. Therefore, going by the nature of the relationship and recitals, it cannot be said that the condition, that the transferor should provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferee was not forming a part of the transfer. 7. The most important question in this case is 'whether the petitioner failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent'. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to a settlement deed, the petitioner settled the shares due to his siblings. He produced certain documents to evidence the same. Anyhow, it is not for this court to advert to such aspects, as the matter cannot be formed, a part of the subject matter of this dispute. The crucial aspect in this matter is that Ext P10 is a report of the District Social Welfare Officer who is a maintenance officer under the Act. On a glance, it can be seen that the petitioner's mother, that is the wife of the third respondent, refused to stay with the petitioner for the reason that she has a strained relationship with the wife of the petitioner. There is no whisper in the above report that the petitioner failed to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. It is to be noted that there was no definite finding in the impugned order that the petitioner had failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. There is no whisper in the above report that the petitioner failed to provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. It is to be noted that there was no definite finding in the impugned order that the petitioner had failed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner expressed his readiness and willingness to provide all basic amenities and physical needs to the third respondent and his wife. 8. All that would show is, that the petitioner's wife is not having a good relationship with her mother-in-law. The conduct of the petitioner should also be noted in this matter. In fact, in the report it is stated that the petitioner had given shares to the sisters. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not under any legal obligation to pay such shares to them, after obtaining the settlement deed. This means that the petitioner had not disowned his legal obligation to maintain his parents. In such circumstances, the Maintenance Tribunal could not have invoked the powers under Section 23 of the Act. The power under Section 23 has to be exercised circumspectly and the Tribunal has to find out whether there was any deliberate and willful negligence on the part of the transferee after the transfer, to maintain the transferor. Mere allegations in this regard are not sufficient. The Tribunal has to consider all the circumstances surrounding the transfer and the conduct of the parties after the transfer. The finding now made, according to me, is without any relevant materials before the Tribunal. When a power is exercised without authority, certainly that order can be interfered invoking the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner expressed his willingness to maintain and provide basic amenities and physical needs to his parents. The petitioner has no objection for permitting his parents to reside in the house as stipulated in the settlement deed during their life time. The petitioner submits that neither he nor his wife will claim any right to reside in the house during the life time of his parents. That submission is recorded. However, the petitioner shall maintain and provide all basic amenities and physical needs to his parents. The petitioner submits that neither he nor his wife will claim any right to reside in the house during the life time of his parents. That submission is recorded. However, the petitioner shall maintain and provide all basic amenities and physical needs to his parents. Apart from that the petitioner should also pay the maintenance which is calculated at Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) each to his parents every month. 10. It is open for the petitioner or the 3rd respondent to approach the Tribunal to vary the order to pay the maintenance based on changing circumstances. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.