New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court decision and restored the eviction order against a son who had forcibly occupied properties belonging to his 80-year-old father and mother, holding that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must be interpreted “liberally to advance its beneficent purpose”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by 80-year-old Kamlakant Mishra, challenging the Bombay High Court’s order.
In its impugned order passed on April 25, 2025, the Bombay High Court had quashed the directives of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, which required his eldest son to vacate the two properties in Mumbai and pay monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000.
The Supreme Court termed the decision “erroneous” since the Bombay High Court, in allowing the appeal, proceeded on the presumption that the eldest son was also a senior citizen and that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have allowed the parents’ complaint since it was made against another senior citizen.
“The record shows that the appellant had moved an application before the Tribunal on 12.07.2023, and at that point in time, the respondent’s (eldest son) age was 59 years. Relevant date for consideration would be the date of filing the application before the Tribunal,” the Justice Vikram Nath-led bench observed.
It further emphasised the welfare-oriented nature of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, stating: “Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. 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.”
In this case, the apex court observed that the son, despite being financially well-off, denied his parents the right to reside in properties owned by them.
It remarked that such conduct “frustrates the very object of the Act”.
Allowing the father’s plea, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment and dismissed the son’s writ petition. However, on a request from the son’s counsel, it granted a limited time for compliance.
“We grant two weeks’ time to the respondent to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the premises on or before 30th November 2025… In the event the undertaking is not filed within the time allowed, it will be open for the appellant (father) to get the order executed forthwith, and the interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith.”
(IANS)
