In a significant ruling that underscores the balance between parental rights and family disputes, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by 68-year-old Samtola Devi against her son Krishna Kumar, affirming the High Court’s decision to set aside an eviction order issued by a Tribunal. The ruling, delivered by Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, reaffirms that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, does not mandate eviction proceedings against children in every case under Senior Citizens Act.
Allegation of children Maltreating Senior Citizen Parents and Senior Citizens Act
The case highlights the unfortunate reality of familial discord, as legal battles unfolded between an aging mother and her sons over property and maintenance rights. The dispute centered around House No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur, owned by the late Kallu Mal and his wife, Samtola Devi. The couple had three sons and two daughters, with Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar operating businesses from the ground-floor shops of the disputed property.
Tensions escalated when Kallu Mal accused his eldest son, Krishna Kumar, of physical abuse and neglect, prompting him to file a petition with the SDM in 2014. Despite a maintenance order issued in 2018 requiring Krishna Kumar and Janardan to pay Rs. 4,000 each per month to their parents, the disputes over property ownership and eviction persisted.
Legal Proceedings and Tribunal Rulings
In 2019, Kallu Mal and Samtola Devi approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, seeking eviction of Krishna Kumar from the family home. The Tribunal constituted under Senior Citizens Act ruled in favour of the elderly couple, imposing restrictions on Krishna Kumar’s movement within the house and warning him against any form of harassment. However, it stopped short of ordering immediate eviction.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the couple appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which escalated the matter by ordering Krishna Kumar’s eviction from the premises. This led Krishna Kumar to challenge the decision in the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in his favour, revoking the eviction order but maintaining the maintenance payments and behavioral restrictions.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Eviction Not Mandatory Under Senior Citizens Act
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the distressing nature of the case, upheld the High Court’s ruling, emphasizing that eviction is not a compulsory measure under the Senior Citizens Act. The judgment clarified that:
- Eviction is discretionary, not obligatory – The Tribunal has the authority to order eviction in cases of harassment or abuse, but it is not an automatic right under the Act.
- Alternative solutions should be prioritized – The Court noted that ordering Krishna Kumar to pay maintenance and ensuring non-interference in his parents’ daily lives were sufficient measures.
- Property rights remain unsettled – Krishna Kumar’s legal claim to a 1/6th share in the property, as well as the validity of past gifts and sale deeds executed by Kallu Mal, are pending adjudication in the Civil Court. Until these disputes are resolved, eviction would be an extreme step.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling sets a precedent for similar disputes across the country, reinforcing that the Senior Citizens Act aims primarily to provide financial and emotional security rather than to serve as a mechanism for property disputes.
Legal experts have lauded the decision for maintaining a balance between the rights of aging parents and the legitimate claims of children. “The judgment ensures that eviction orders are not misused as a weapon in family conflicts,” said senior advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena, who represented the respondents.
Meanwhile, social welfare activists argue that the case underscores the urgent need for stronger legal protections for elderly citizens facing neglect and abuse. “While financial maintenance is crucial, emotional well-being is just as important. The law should consider mechanisms to ensure elderly citizens live with dignity,” remarked Anjali Verma, a senior citizen rights advocate.
As the case draws to a close, the ruling serves as a reminder of the erosion of traditional family values and the growing legal entanglements between parents and children. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of mediation and conciliation in resolving such disputes rather than relying solely on eviction orders.
For Samtola Devi and Krishna Kumar, the legal battle may be over, but the family rift remains. Whether the ruling paves the way for reconciliation or further deepens divisions remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that this case will continue to shape discussions on elder rights and property disputes in India for years to come.
