In a significant judgment balancing the rights of senior citizens and legal protections afforded to family members, the Supreme Court of India has held that while the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) provides for maintenance, it does not inherently confer the power to evict children or relatives from residential premises — unless exceptional circumstances demand it.
The decision came in Civil Appeal No. __ of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26651 of 2023), titled Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., where Samtola Devi, a 68-year-old mother from Sultanpur, U.P., sought the eviction of her eldest son Krishna Kumar from their family residence, citing harassment and lack of support.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the appeal on March 27, 2025, upholding a 2023 decision of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the eviction order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act.
Background of the Dispute
The case traces back to a deeply fractured family dispute. Kallu Mal, husband of Samtola Devi (now deceased), owned House No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur, which also included three shops on the ground floor. He and his wife had three sons and two daughters. Over the years, internal family conflicts intensified, especially with their eldest son Krishna Kumar, who was accused by his father of abuse and neglect.
In 2017, the elderly couple initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- each to both parents, to be paid monthly by their sons, Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar.
In 2019, citing continued harassment, the couple approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, seeking eviction of Krishna Kumar. The Tribunal, however, allowed him to continue residing in a single room with attached bathroom and continue his utensil business from one of the shops, with a condition: if he harassed his parents, eviction proceedings could be initiated.
Dissatisfied, the couple appealed. The Appellate Tribunal (District Magistrate, Sultanpur) overturned the earlier order and directed Krishna Kumar’s eviction. Krishna Kumar challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, which partly allowed his writ petition (Writ-C No. 35884 of 2009) and set aside the eviction, maintaining other conditions.
After Kallu Mal’s death, Samtola Devi pursued the matter before the Supreme Court, seeking full eviction of her son.
Legal Arguments
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Pallav Shisodiya argued that the property was the self-acquired property of Kallu Mal, and Krishna Kumar had no legal right to remain in the house, particularly given his history of abuse and neglect. He cited the apex court’s decision in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 787, to assert that eviction under the Senior Citizens Act is permissible in such circumstances.
Senior Advocate S.K. Saxena, appearing for Krishna Kumar, contested this, maintaining that his client had always supported his parents, was paying court-ordered maintenance, and was legally residing in one room with an attached bath, running the utensil business inherited from his father. He also contended that the property was subject to pending civil suits filed by Krishna Kumar seeking 1/6th share in the house and cancellation of gift deeds made in favour of his sisters and brother-in-law.
Supreme Court’s Observations & Ruling
The Supreme Court, while noting the tragic state of intra-family litigation, made a poignant observation:
“In India we believe in ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – the earth is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain unity in the immediate family… We are on the brink of one person, one family.”
The Court acknowledged that the property was originally purchased by Kallu Mal in 1971, but had been partially transferred through gift deeds and sale deeds to his daughters and son-in-law, and even to a third party (Amrita Singh). One shop was also gifted to his younger daughter Anjali, who had rented it out.
Importantly, the Court noted that:
“If it is accepted that the house is self-acquired property of the father, and if he has already transferred it to his daughters and son-in-law, he ceases to be the owner. Hence, neither he nor the mother can claim eviction rights from the said property.”
The Court held that Section 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act only envisage maintenance, and not an absolute right to evict. While eviction may be permitted in exceptional circumstances (as noted in S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730), the power is discretionary, not mandatory.
The Court found no evidence of recent harassment by Krishna Kumar after the 2019 Tribunal order. He was paying maintenance regularly and living in a small, non-intrusive portion of the house.
Hence, the apex court concluded:
“There was no necessity for the extreme step of eviction. The purpose could be served by ensuring maintenance and restraining interference in the life of the senior citizen.”
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The Senior Citizens Act is primarily aimed at securing maintenance, not enforcing eviction of family members.
- Eviction can only be ordered in exceptional, well-reasoned circumstances where harassment or danger to the senior citizen is proven.
- Ownership claims and property disputes must be resolved separately by civil courts; the Act cannot override ongoing civil litigation.
- A child may have an “implied license” to reside in the parental home unless abuse or threat is clearly established.
