In a significant ruling safeguarding the rights of elderly parents, the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of maintenance tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to order eviction of children who fail to fulfill their statutory duty of care.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside a Bombay High Court order that had quashed the tribunal’s directive directing an 80-year-old man’s son to vacate two properties owned by his father. The apex court restored the tribunal’s decision, observing that the legislation was enacted as a welfare measure to ensure protection and dignity of senior citizens.
The father, aged about 80, and his 78-year-old wife had moved from Mumbai to Uttar Pradesh, leaving their three children in possession of properties purchased by him in Mumbai. The elder son, who runs a business, allegedly took over the premises and prevented his father from residing there.
In July 2023, the elderly couple filed an application seeking maintenance and eviction. The tribunal directed the son to hand over possession of both properties and to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance. This order was affirmed by the appellate tribunal but overturned by the Bombay High Court in April 2024, which held that tribunals had no jurisdiction to pass eviction orders.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning, clarifying that the son, aged 59 at the time of proceedings, could not be treated as a senior citizen. The Bench stressed that the 2007 Act was a welfare law and must be “liberally construed” to achieve its beneficent objectives.
“Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This court on several occasions has observed that 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 Bench stated.
The court also noted that despite being financially stable, the son had acted in breach of his statutory obligation by denying his father residence in his own properties.
While setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Bench granted the son two weeks to file an undertaking that he would vacate the premises by November 30, 2025. Until then, the tribunal’s eviction order would remain in abeyance. However, the court cautioned that failure to submit the undertaking would allow the father to execute the order immediately, with interim protection being automatically withdrawn.
