BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIRECTS SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TO VACATE THE PARENTS’ PROPERTY UPHOLDING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT
Introduction
A Bombay High Court Bench, on 18th June, 2025, decided a petition filed by senior citizen parents seeking to challenge an order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter ‘The Act’). The dispute centers around the Petitioners’ efforts to evict their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property, after facing alleged harassment and legal actions initiated by the daughter-in-law. Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar while pronouncing the judgment, in the case titled Chandiram Hemnani and Anr. v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Ors., discussed the legality of that Appellate Order and raises important issues regarding the scope of protection available to senior citizens under the Act.
Factual Background of the Case
The Petitioners sought eviction of their son (respondent No.3) and daughter-in-law (respondent No.4) from their house, alleging that after initially allowing them to stay post-marriage, their daughter-in-law initiated frivolous litigations. The Tribunal (Sub Divisional Officer) had allowed their application and ordered eviction within 30 days.
The daughter-in-law appealed, citing her right to reside in the property due to ongoing matrimonial and criminal proceedings (including under Hindu Marriage Act, Domestic Violence Act, and IPC). Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and should be resolved through appropriate civil proceedings, thereby quashing the eviction Order. The Petitioners thereafter challenged the aforesaid Appellate Order through the present Petition.
Arguments Advanced by Parties
Advocate N. S. Jain, counsel for the Petitioners, argued that the Appellate Tribunal wrongly treated the eviction dispute as merely a civil matter, thereby undermining the Act which aims to protect senior citizens. The Petitioners, who are senior citizens and absolute owners of the bungalow purchased in 2008 with their own funds and a loan (still being repaid), alleged that their son and daughter-in-law were allowed to stay temporarily. Due to marital disputes, the daughter-in-law began harassing them and filed criminal cases. This situation deprived them of enjoyment of their own property, forcing them to approach the Tribunal under Sections 5 and 20 of the Act.
He further contended that the Appellate Tribunal’s Order was arbitrary and relied on precedents (including Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. 681and Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra 2022 (1) Mh.L.J 279) which recognize the right of senior citizens to seek eviction under the Act. He emphasized the need for a holistic interpretation consistent with the Act’s objectives.
Advocate M. L. Sangit, representing Respondent authorities, defended the Appellate Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the Petitioners remain free to seek eviction through Civil Courts and that the Tribunal properly declined eviction relief under Section 5, which mainly concerns maintenance.
Court’s Ruling
After carefully reviewing the facts and the law, the Court adjudicated upon the following points:
- Ownership: It held that the Petitioners are the undisputed owners of the property in question. The son and daughter-in-law have no legal ownership or residence rights in it.
- Tribunal’s Error: The Appellate Tribunal wrongly concluded that the Petitioners’ eviction claim was merely a civil dispute requiring recourse to a civil court. This ignored the Act’s broader purpose of protecting senior citizens’ property rights.
- Respondent No.4’s Claims: The daughter-in-law’s claim to reside in the property was based only on bare assertions about pending matrimonial and criminal cases. She produced no order granting her any right to reside there under the Domestic Violence Act or any other law. Notably, she later purchased her own house and did not deny this in court, further undermining her claim to stay in the petitioners’ property.
- Statutory Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the Act is a beneficial legislation. It empowers senior citizens to seek not only maintenance but also protection of their property, including eviction of relatives occupying it without right.
- Judicial Precedents: It held that the Appellate Tribunal ignored the binding High Court Precedent (Dattatrey Shivaji Mane’s Judgment), showing a lack of sensitivity to the Act’s aims.
- Respondent No.4’s Conduct: During the litigation, the daughter-in-law continued to occupy the property despite a Court order requiring payment of Rs.20,000/month, which she did not comply.
Therefore, the Court held that the Tribunal’s Order was perverse, unsustainable, and defeated the Act’s purpose and consequently the Appellate Tribunal’s Order was quashed and set aside, directing son and daughter-in-law to vacate the property.
Conclusion
In delivering its Judgment, the Court unequivocally upheld the rights and dignity of senior citizens who had been deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their self-acquired property. By setting aside the Appellate Tribunal’s Order and restoring the eviction directive, the Court affirmed that the Act is not merely a procedural framework for maintenance but a vital protective measure against harassment and dispossession faced by elderly parents.
Yash Hari Dixit
Associate
The Indian Lawyer and Allied Services
Editor’s Comments
Time and again children have taken advantage of their right to residence with their parents. What is even worse is when the son and daughter-in-law have a fall out in their marital relationship and become warring parties in different courts. It has been seen that very often it is the senior citizen parents who have to suffer the consequences and life becomes hell in their own home. High Courts in India have now started recognising this very important right of senior citizens and have evicted ungrateful children. The judgment underscores the fact that senior citizens have a right to enjoy their property and live peacefully
Sushila Ram Varma Advocate and Chief Consultant
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled POCSO Law in India: Key Provisions Every Parent Must Know | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below:
Leave a Reply