Tribunals under Senior Citizens Act can order children's eviction from parent's property without monetary maintenance claim, as 'maintenance' includes residence essential for normal life, per purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation.

JUDGMENT :

N.J.JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners take exception to a judgment and order dated 29 October 2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.80 of 2025, whereby the said appeal, preferred by the Petitioners, against the order dated 26 August 2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Senior Citizens Act, 2007), thereby directing the Petitioners to vacate the premises i.e. House No.C-209, Siddhi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mhada Colony, Navghar Road, Mulund (the subject flat) came to be dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

3. The background facts necessary for the determination of this Petition can be stated, as under :

3.1 The Respondent No.1 is the mother of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners are residing in the said flat. Respondent No.1 – senior citizen, filed a complaint being Case No.41 of 2025, before the Maintenance Tribunal, asserting that the Petitioners were harassing, abusing and assaulting her. Few incidents of the alleged harassment and torture at the hands of the Petitioners were narrated in the said complaint. It was, inter alia, alleged that the Petitioners subjected the Respondent No.1 to physical assault, abused and coerced her to execute the documents to transfer the subject flat in favour of Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners eventually drove the Respondent No.1 out of the subject flat. Respondent No.1, thus, prayed that the Petitioners be evicted from the subject flat, so that she can live a normal life in her own premises.

3.2 The Petitioners resisted the application. It was refuted that the Respondent No.1 is the sole and absolute owner of the subject flat. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 had purchased the subject flat for the residence of the family for a total consideration of Rs.6,18,000/-. Although, the subject flat was purchased in the name of Respondent No.1, substantial part of the consideration was contributed by the Petitioner No.1. To finance the said acquisition, the Petitioner No.1 had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- to the Respondent No.1, in cash.

3.3 The Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 had also jointly purchased another flat being Flat No.405, C Wing, Mulund Shree Sawant Co-op. Hsg. Soc. For the said acquisition, the Petitioner No.1 had contributed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. In the year 2013, the Petitioners alleged, Respondent No.1 had illegally and without the consent of the Petitioner No.1, sold the said Flat No.405 for a total consideration of Rs.76,00,000/- and the entire sale proceeds were handed over by Respondent No.1 to Kishor, the elder brother of the Petitioner No.1. Kishor and his wife Seema had executed documents acknowledging receipt of the said amount and the liability to maintain Respondent No.1 for her lifetime.

3.4 It was alleged that the Respondent No.1 has been