Writ petitions under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act cannot seek eviction; they only allow for maintenance enforcement, emphasizing the Act's protective nature for senior citizens.

Judgment :

 Krishna Rao, J. 

1. Smt. Pushpa Sharma filed the present writ petition being WPA No. 10504 of 2025 praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma and Gajanand Sharma to hand over the possession of the immovable property belonging to her situated at Rangamati, District- Paschim Medinipur, comprising 2 cottahs of land, consisting of a three (3) storied building in terms of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6th September, 2024 and 6th December, 2024.

2. Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma @ Bablu filed another writ petition being WPA No. 16316 of 2025 for setting aside and quashing the part of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6th September, 2024 wherein the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the petitioner to vacate the property.

3. The mother, Smt. Pushpa Sharma has filed the present writ application for implementation of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the allegation that the sons have not vacated the house and have not handed over the same to her in terms of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

4. The petitioner Smt. Pushpa Sharma is the mother of Shyam Sundar Sharma and Gajanand Sharma. Smt. Pushpa Sharma has initially filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Medinipur Sadar, against her two sons, namely, Shyam Sundar Sharma and Gajanand Sharma praying for maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month and reimbursement of hospital expenses.

5. By an order dated 6th September, 2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Medinipur Sadar, directed Gajanand Sharma and Shyam Sundar Sharma to vacate the building within three (3) months from the date of the order and during this period, Shri Gajanand Sharma will pay Rs. 10,000/- per month and Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma will pay Rs. 15,000/- per month within 7th day of every month as maintenance to their mother.

6. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Learned Advocate representing the mother submits that the husband of the petitioner died in the month of September, 2018, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow, two sons and a married daughter. It is also the claim of the petitioner that she is the owner of the three storied building but the sons are in occupation of the said building. He further submits that neither of the sons of the petitioner, is providing any maintenance for her survival nor expenses for her medical treatment.

7. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the petitioner for her survival had to take shelter at her elder brother’s house at Cuttack. He submits that it is impossible for the petitioner to reside in her dwelling house because of the threat to her safety from her sons.

8. Mr. Chatterjee submits that as the sons are not vacating the building, thus the maintenance amount awarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- per month.

9. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the judgment in the case of Samtola Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669 and submits that there is no necessity for eviction of the respondents from the house but the respondents may be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- and in case they fail to pay the maintenance amount, the respondent