Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Ravi Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT (CAV)
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Law and morality regulate and control human behaviour in society. Though complementary, when morality is infused into legislation, the legislatures have to caution themselves from overstepping the legal premise and the Courts have the daunting task of avoiding a judicial overreach hinged only on popular notions of right and wrong. That parents have to be looked after by children require no legislative imprimatur but in deciding property rights, we should be conscious of the interplay of such rights regulated by various statutes.
2. The order impugned in the appeal is one affirming the order issued by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act). The 8th respondent, who was the father of the first appellant was before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the 1st appellant & his wife-the 2nd appellant, who were residing in the rest house owned by the 8th respondent; the rent received from which is asserted to be the only income of the 8th respondent.
3. The petitioners i
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 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....
The Assistant Commissioner has the authority to issue eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially to ensure the protection and maintenance o....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that children cannot assert any legal right in the property of their parents during the parents' lifetime, and the Maintenance and Welfare of Paren....
An application for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not maintainable without a concurrent claim for maintenance, as maintenance is the primary issue.
An eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act requires a maintenance claim by the senior citizen; without such a claim, the eviction is not maintainable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, which empowers the Tribunal to order eviction of the occupant fr....
S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.