Next Story
Newszop

Supreme Court evicts 61-year-old son for neglecting 80-year-old parents in Mumbai

Send Push
The Supreme Court has ordered the eviction of a 61-year-old son from two rooms owned by his 80-year-old father in Mumbai after he failed to provide maintenance as mandated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as reported by TOI. The elderly couple, aged 80 and 78, were forced to move back to their native town in Uttar Pradesh after being pushed out of the properties by their son, who was running a business there.

Background of the case
The father and mother owned two rooms—one at Yadav Chawl in Yadav Nagar and another at Raju Estate, Bengali Chawl, Saki Naka—where their son resided. In July 2023, the couple filed for maintenance and eviction before the relevant tribunal, which in June last year directed the son to hand over possession of both rooms and pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000. The son’s challenge was rejected by the appellate tribunal before he appealed in the Bombay High Court.

High Court and Supreme Court rulings
The Bombay High Court, on April 25, allowed the son’s petition, holding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction since the son was over 60 years old. The parents then appealed to the Supreme Court, which found the High Court’s decision erroneous. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted the son was 59 years old when the parents first approached the tribunal.

The bench observed, “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 Supreme Court ordered the son to vacate the two rooms and hand over possession to his parents by November 30. It further stated, “In the present case, despite being financially stable, the son has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the parents to reside in the properties owned by the father, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. The HC fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.”

(With inputs from TOI)
Loving Newspoint? Download the app now