Supreme Court restores elderly father’s rights, orders son to vacate properties

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court, providing significant relief to an 80-year-old father, has ordered his son to vacate and return two properties located in Mumbai. The top court clarified that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the tribunal has the power to order the eviction of children or relatives from an elder’s property if they violate their maintenance obligations.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta overturned the Bombay High Court’s April decision in the case. The High Court had earlier set aside the tribunal order that had directed the son to return the father’s properties.

Referring to the 2007 Act, the Supreme Court said the law’s objective is to remove the hardships of elderly persons and ensure their care and protection. The bench commented, “Being a welfare legislation, its provisions should be interpreted liberally to advance its beneficent purpose.” The court emphasized that if a child or relative breaches their maintenance duties toward a senior citizen, the tribunal has full power to order their eviction from the property.

The petitioner is 80 years old and his wife is 78. They had purchased two properties in Mumbai. Later, they moved to Uttar Pradesh with the wife and left the properties in the custody of their children. Their elder son took possession of both properties and did not allow his parents to live there.

Despite being financially capable, the son evicted his father from his own property, thereby violating his legal duties. The elderly couple then filed a petition in the tribunal in July 2023 seeking maintenance and return of the properties. The tribunal ordered the son to hand both properties back to the father and to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000. The appellate tribunal also upheld this decision.

However, when the son approached the High Court, the court accepted his petition and held that the tribunal did not have the authority to order eviction. The 80-year-old father then approached the Supreme Court against that decision—and has now been vindicated.