The Bombay High Court has held that a senior citizen can seek eviction of children or relatives from her property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even without claiming monetary maintenance, if such eviction is necessary to ensure that the senior citizen can live a normal and dignified life.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a 71-year-old mother before the Maintenance Tribunal alleging harassment and ill-treatment by her son and daughter-in-law. She claimed that the petitioners had abused and assaulted her and had driven her out of her own flat in Mulund, forcing her to take shelter in a senior citizens’ care facility. The Tribunal ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises, which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The son and daughter-in-law challenged the orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that eviction could not be ordered under the Senior Citizens Act unless the senior citizen had specifically sought maintenance. They relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Appellate Authority, OOCJ WP(L) No.31614 of 2025 and Supreme Court judgments including S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020 and Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 404.
Rejecting the contention, Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation meant to protect senior citizens from neglect and harassment, and its provisions must be interpreted purposively. The Court emphasised that the definition of “maintenance” under Section 2(b) includes residence provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment, and therefore extends beyond mere financial assistance.
Explaining the broader scope of the statute, the Court held that the right of a senior citizen to live a “normal life” includes the right to reside peacefully in her own property without harassment or dispossession.
The Court further clarified that eviction may be necessary to enforce the statutory obligation of children to allow a parent or senior citizen to live such a life. It therefore ruled that a separate claim for monetary maintenance is not always necessary when the senior citizen seeks restoration of possession of her property.
“It cannot be laid down as an immutable and absolute rule of law that the application for eviction simplicitor sans the prayer for monetary maintenance is not maintainable, even when the senior citizen claims that she has been dispossessed of her property or she requires the property to generate income out of the said property to lead a normal life. To hold otherwise, would amount to defeating the very objective of the Act, 2007.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court noted that the mother had been forced to reside in an old-age home and that the flat stood in her name. The claim of the son that he had contributed to the purchase of the property was held to be a self-serving assertion that could be pursued before a civil court but could not defeat the senior citizen’s right to reside in her own premises.
Holding that the Tribunal’s order was aimed at enforcing the mother’s right to live peacefully in her property, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction order against the son and daughter-in-law. The Court held:
“As the order is of eviction, the ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for a period of three weeks subject to the Petitioners filing an undertaking, not to create any third party rights and part with possession of the subject flat, within a period of one week from today.”
Appearances
Mr. R.S.Dubey, for Petitioners.
Mr. Aashutosh Kulkarni with Mr. Vipul Raut, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Leena Patil, B Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
