Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 839

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Ashutosh Kumar, C.J., Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
Joy Brata Kundu – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment And Anr. - Respondents
WA 403 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S Sahu, Ms A Roy,Ms. R Bhargav,T Bharali
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Mr. Z. Hussain, Ms R. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Ms. S.E.Murtaza, Adv., Ms P. Chakraborty, Adv.

The welfare legislation providing for senior citizens must be interpreted broadly to ensure their dignity and peaceful residence. 'Maintenance' includes the right to a secure, peaceful home, and tribunals are empowered to order the eviction of children causing harassment, regardless of the parent's financial status.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(b), 2(f), 4 and 23 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Welfare legislation for senior citizens - Purposive and liberal construction - Scope of 'maintenance' and 'property' - Eviction of children from self-acquired residential property is permissible to ensure dignity, safety, and peaceful enjoyment of life for a senior citizen, even in absence of formal title transfer - 'Maintenance' encompasses residence and is not limited to financial support alone - 'Shared household' plea requires foundational pleadings and cannot be introduced for the first time at appellate stage. (Paras 35-47, 51-65, 69-70)

(B) Appeals - Appellate jurisdiction - Interference with factual findings of subordinate tribunals - Limited scope - Findings regarding harassment and necessity of eviction for a senior citizen’s security cannot be disturbed unless demonstrated to be perverse or wholly unsupported by record. (Paras 66-67)

Facts of the case:
A senior citizen and sole owner of a residential property sought the eviction of his adult children and their families, alleging physical and mental harassment, emotional neglect, and interference with his peaceful possession of his property. The occupants admitted permissive occupation but contested the maintainability of the petition on grounds that the parent had sufficient pensionary income and that the underlying legislation did not contemplate eviction in the absence of a formal property transfer. A plea regarding the right of residence in a 'shared household' was introduced by the appellants for the first time during the appeal.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably deteriorated and that the occupants' continued presence caused significant disturbance and insecurity. Because the occupants lacked any independent legal right to occupy the property, the tribunal correctly ordered their eviction to safeguard the senior citizen's dignity and living standard.

Issues: Whether the relevant welfare legislation permits the eviction of adult children from a parent's self-acquired property in the absence of a formal transfer, and whether a parent's financial self-sufficiency precludes the invocation of protection under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The legislation being social welfare in nature must be interpreted to give effect to its goal of protecting the life, dignity, and peaceful residence of the elderly. 'Maintenance' is an inclusive concept that extends to the provision of a secure and peaceful living environment. Consequently, permissive occupation by children, when it results in the harassment or the deprivation of the owner's dignified enjoyment of their own property, falls under the scope of regulatory protection, allowing for an eviction order.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. contextual background of property dispute between senior citizen and occupants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. appellants' response: dispute as interpersonal conflict rather than property/maintenance claim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. tribunal findings: eviction mandated for the dignity of the senior citizen. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. appellants' legal challenge regarding act 2007 applicability and domestic violence act claims. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
5. procedural review and unsuccessful mediation efforts between parties. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. social welfare legislative philosophy of the act of 2007. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. broad interpretation of maintenance to include resident's peaceful living and dignity. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. purposive construction of section 23: protection extends to permissive occupation. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
9. financial independence does not negate a senior citizen’s right to protection. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
10. requirement for foundational pleading in domestic violence claims. (Para 69 , 70 , 71)
11. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of eviction order. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Bharali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Ms R. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.E.Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order (CAV) dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 3504/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellants came to be dismissed and the order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri directing eviction of the appellants from the self-acquired property of their father, namely, respondent No. 2 herein, was upheld.

3. The facts are in a narrow compass.

4. The respondent No.2 is a senior citizen and the father of the present appellants. He is the admitted owner of the property in question, being a residential building, standing on his self-acquired land situated at Dhubri Town.

5. The appellants, who are two sons, along with their respective family members, including their wives, were residing in a portion of the said premises with the permission of the respondent No.2.

6. Alleging neglect, harassment and interference with his peaceful enjoyment of the property at the hands of the appellants and their family members, the respondent No. 2 approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri, seeking eviction of the appellants from the premises.

7. The pleadings of the respondent No. 2, before the learned Tribunal, disclose that the dispute was not projected merely as a claim for monetary maintenance, but as a grievance of prolonged physical, mental and emotional harassment, coupled with deprivation of the peaceful enjoyment of his self-acquired property. The respondent No. 2 specifically pleaded that st after permitting the appellants and their family members to reside on the 1 floor of the building out of parental affection, the relationship subsequently deteriorated and the appellants allegedly subjected him to sustained neglect and harassment.

8. The respondent No.2 further pleaded before the Tribunal that the dispute had arisen concerning a financial transaction and certain fraudulent property dealings belonging to the respondent No. 2 behind his back, allegedly undertaken by the appellants in collusion with a third party, by forging the signature of the respondent No.2, which, according to him, caused serious mental agony and insecurity in his old age. The pleadings also refer to several criminal proceedings, complaints before the police authorities and proceedings before other forums arising out of the dispute between the parti