SC directs son to vacate homes, upholds 80-yr-old father’s plea
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has overturned a Bombay High Court ruling and restored an eviction order against a son who had forcibly occupied properties owned by his 80-year-old father and mother. The apex court emphasised that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must be interpreted “liberally to advance its beneficent purpose.”
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by senior citizen Kamlakant Mishra, challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision.
The Bombay High Court, in its April 25, 2025 order, had quashed directives issued by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. These directives required Mishra’s eldest son to vacate two Mumbai properties and pay monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000.
The Supreme Court termed the High Court’s decision “erroneous,” noting that it wrongly assumed the eldest son was also a senior citizen and concluded that the Tribunal could not entertain the parents’ complaint. The bench clarified that the relevant date for consideration is the date the application was filed with the Tribunal. At that time, the son was 59 years old.
Highlighting the welfare-oriented nature of the Act, Justice Nath’s bench stated: “Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. The Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.”
The apex court further observed that the son, despite being financially well-off, denied his parents the right to reside in their own properties, a conduct that “frustrates the very object of the Act.”
While allowing the father’s plea and dismissing the son’s writ petition, the Supreme Court granted a limited compliance period. The son has two weeks to furnish an undertaking to vacate the premises by November 30, 2025. In the absence of such an undertaking, the father may execute the eviction immediately, and any interim protection granted will automatically stand withdrawn.
With IANS inputs