The Bombay High Court has affirmed the eviction of a 52-year-old man from his octogenarian father’s residence in Mumbai, ruling that adult children cannot deprive elderly parents of their fundamental right to live in peace and dignity.
Justice N J Jamadar dismissed the son’s petition challenging successive eviction orders issued by the maintenance tribunal and appellate tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that the authorities were fully justified in removing the man from the Kalina property after reviewing medical documentation and distressing closed-circuit television recordings that substantiated allegations of physical assault.
Right to Peaceful Residence Covered Under Senior Citizens Act
In its ruling delivered on August 27, the court clarified that eviction remedies remain available under the 2007 legislation even when an elderly parent does not explicitly demand financial maintenance. The bench observed that the statutory definition of maintenance encompasses housing, placing a binding obligation on relatives to ensure they do not obstruct or compromise a senior citizen’s peaceful occupation of their own home.
Justice Jamadar noted that while property disagreements existed among the siblings, such disputes offered no justification for the petitioner’s reprehensible behavior toward his 83-year-old parent.
Allegations of Assault and Intimidation
The legal proceedings originated when the father approached the maintenance tribunal seeking his son’s removal from the household. The elderly man stated that his son suffered from alcoholism, exhibited an aggressive temperament, repeatedly assaulted family members, and exerted pressure on him to liquidate properties for money.
The father had previously lodged two formal assault complaints with the police following altercations in July 2022 and February 2023. Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, representing the father, presented medical records alongside security footage demonstrating that the son had physically attacked the senior citizen.
Defense Claims Fabrication Over Property Disputes
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Sonal Parab, Esha Rane, and Sudhanshu Sawant argued that the senior citizen welfare law was being weaponized against their client. The son denied all charges of mistreatment, asserting that his brother and sister-in-law had manufactured the allegations to seize property that the father did not solely own. He further maintained that he had routinely financed his parents’ healthcare and insurance policies.
The maintenance tribunal originally directed the son to vacate the premises on September 11, 2024, a decision affirmed by the appellate authority on December 12, 2024.
Police Complaints Viewed as a Measure of Last Resort
The High Court rejected the defense’s contention regarding the minimal number of police reports filed across a 13-year span. Justice Jamadar observed that parents rarely initiate formal legal proceedings against their offspring and typically seek police intervention only as an exhausted last resort.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the lower tribunals’ rulings, the court recorded that the eviction directive had already been carried out, successfully restoring safety and stability to the senior citizen’s living conditions.
