SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Samtola Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26651 of 2023]
Decided On : 27-03-2025
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 4/5 and 23 – Right to maintenance – Provisions of Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person – In a given case, Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass order of eviction in every case – Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating eviction of son or that in facts and circumstances of case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure protection of senior citizen – Claim of son regarding 1/6th share and cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before Civil Court – There was no necessity for extreme step for ordering eviction of son from a portion of house rather purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing parents and interfering in their day-to-day life – High Court appears to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside eviction order passed by Tribunal and to maintain other conditions imposed by Tribunal. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation with their children (sons) and the children (sons) are in litigation with their parents.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order of High Court dated 18.08.2023 is well considered, equitable and justified. It has rightly set aside the appellate order passed by Tribunal.
Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family.
3. This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation with their children (sons) and the children (sons) are in litigation with their parents.
4. One Kallu Mal (dead) aged about 75 years and his wife Samtola Devi aged about 68 years had three sons and two daughters namely Krishna Kumar, Janardan Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Sushila Gupta and Anjali Kumari respectively. Out of the two daughters, Sushila Gupta is married to Suresh Narottam Das Gupta whereas Anjali Kumari is unmarried. The said Kallu Mal has a house bearing No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur and various shops therein, precisely three shops in the lower part of the house. One of the shops is occupied by the elder son Krishna Kumar who is presently carrying on the utensil business from the said shop which he had taken over from his father. The other son Janardan is doing electrical business from the other shop. The third son Rajender Kumar is dead and his wife has remarried whereas his son is living with the eldest son Krishna Kumar. The third shop has been gifted by Kallu Mal to the younger daughter Anjali Kumari, who has rented it out at the rate of Rs. 26,500/- per month. Apart from the above house and three shops, late Kallu Mal had certain other properties as well.
5. It appears that the relations of Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi were not cordial with their sons. Consequently, on 04.08.2014, Kallu Mal made an application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur alleging that his eldest son Krishna Kumar often beats him and tortures him mentally and physically. He has friendship with people having criminal antecedents. He often abuses him. His behaviour resultantly deteriorated his position in the society. Therefore, requesting the SDM to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.
6. In 2017, Kallu Mal along with his wife Samtola Devi initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 828 of 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. The Family Court vide order dated 04.12.2018 awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi each, total Rs. 8,000/- per month payable equally by two sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar by the 7th day of each calendar month. Aforesaid order is final and conclusive as it has not been challenged till date by any party in any higher forum.
7. It appears that the two daughters of Kallu Mal started interfering in the family matters concerning him, his wife Samtola Devi and his two sons. The eldest daughter Sushila Gupta got a gift deed of the lower part of northern portion of the aforesaid House No. 778 in her favour. She even got the sale deed executed of the southern part of the house in a favour of her husband Suresh Narottam Das Gupta.
8. Apart from the above, the two daughters managed for the transfer of a residential plot by their father Kallu Mal in favour of one Amrita Singh vide sale deed dated 14.12.2017. Another plot of 121 sq. meter was transferred vide sale deed dated 20.03.2019 in favour of Suresh Narottam Das Gupta, the husband of the eldest daughter.
9. It also appears that the eldest son Krishna Kumar married in 2018 to a girl from another caste/clan, as such Kallu Mal and his wife got annoyed with him.
10. In the light of the aforesaid background, Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 20071 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Senior Citizens Act’] on 29.04.2019 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur. The Tribunal reg
Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.
S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.
Right to maintenance – Provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior pers....
Senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from separate residence of son in a building owned by him, under Senior Citizens Act – Son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned ....
The main legal principle established is that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are focused on the welfare and protection of senior citizens, and are not meant to decide the title of the p....
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
Eviction of petitioners from property owned by senior citizens was impermissible without sufficient justification under the Senior Citizens Act, reinforcing that such decisions must prioritize the we....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.