SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Sudhir Ranjan Mohapatro and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Kameswar Mohapatro and Another - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.20992 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Basudev Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P. K. Mishra, Adv.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act permits eviction of children from parental property if their presence poses a threat to the safety and dignity of senior citizens, reflecting the Act's protective purpose.

Headnote:(A) The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 4 and 16 - Eviction of children from parental property - The court analyzed the powers of the district magistrate under the Act, emphasizing that it can ensure the protection and maintenance of senior citizens without unnecessary legal impediments. (Paras 12, 13, 20)

(B) Beneficial Statutes - The court reaffirmed that beneficial statutes like the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act must receive a purposive interpretation, allowing courts to grant necessary relief in line with its objectives. (Paras 12, 19)

Facts of the case:
The senior citizen complainants alleged physical and mental torture by their children, who have taken residence in the familial home, prompting the filing of a complaint for eviction under the Act. The Tribunal held the eviction necessary for the complainants' safety.

Findings of Court:
The appellate tribunal's order for eviction was confirmed, noting the necessity for the senior citizens to live with security and dignity.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order eviction under the Act and the interpretation of the Act's provisions in the context of maintaining the welfare of senior citizens.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Act allows for eviction of children from parental property if they subject the senior citizens to distress, affirming the necessary legislative intent to protect vulnerable individuals.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; eviction order upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against the eviction order (Para 4 , 5 , 18)
3. court's reasoning for upholding eviction (Para 6 , 12 , 20)
4. interpretation of the maintenance act (Para 13 , 15 , 16)
5. final decision and dismissal of petition (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the final order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2024 by the Collector, Gajapati.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the O.Ps of this writ petition being the old father and mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and old father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner Nos.2 & 4 of this writ petition filed Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati against the petitioners in this writ petition arraying them as O.Ps praying for directing the O.P. Nos.3 & 4 to vacate the house situated on plot No.1433/4139 Ac0.040 decimals under Khata No.215/1063 at Sai Nagar in Mouza Paralakhemundi, to direct the O.Ps to pay them monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and to pass such other orders in their favour as the Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice stating in their complaint petition that, they (petitioners in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 and O.Ps in this writ petition) are old and senior citizens and they are the parents of the O.P. Nos.1 & 3 and parent-in-laws of O.P. Nos.2 & 4.

The house situated on plot No.1433/4139 under Khata No.215/1063 in Mouza Paralakhemundi exclusively belong to the O.P. No.2 (mother of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 and mother-in-law of the petitioner Nos.2 & 4). The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are staying separately from them since last 25 years. When the O.P. No.1 was infected with Corona, then the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 stayed separately from them without taking any care and two years thereafter, they petitioner Nos.3 & 4 entered into the house of the O.P. No.2 situated on plot No.1433/4139 with a malafide intention to drive both the O.Ps in this writ petition out forcefully from that house and started torturing them (O.Ps) physically and mentally. So, they (O.Ps) apprehended danger to their lives by the attack of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 in this writ petition. The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 did not take any step to prevent the O.Ps from the attack and assault of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4.

For which, without getting any way, they (O.Ps in this writ petition) approached the learned Tribunal by filing Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 being the complainants against the petitioners in this writ petition as per the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 praying for directing them (O.Ps) to vacate the house situated on Plot No.1433/4139 immediately and to restrain them (O.Ps) from entering into the same in future, to pass an order for granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to them (complainants) and to pass such other order/orders as the Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Having been noticed from the learned Tribunal in Complaint Case No.01 of 2023, the O.Ps (petitioners in this writ petition) objected to the same by filing their joint objection taking their stands that, the complainant No.1 (father of O.P. Nos.1 & 3) is a retired S.I. of police and he is a pension holder. The O.P. No.1 in that Complaint Case No.01 of 2023 (petitioner No.1 in this writ petition) being the eldest son of the complainants took all the burden of the family and looked after the welfare of the family and he has funded sufficiently not only for the marriage of his sisters, but also for establishing his younger brothers and soon after the retirement of the complainant No.1, he had undergone treatment with bypass surgery and for such treatment, the complainant No.1 spe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top