Back
Upholds Son's Eviction From Mother's Home Over Harassment, Cites Senior Citizens Act
In a significant ruling, the has upheld the eviction of a doctor and his family from the residential home of his 82-year-old mother, affirming that the state's duty to protect senior citizens extends to removing sources of harassment from their homes.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the single-judge bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. M.S. Mahesh, a government medical officer, challenging concurrent orders by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner directing his eviction. The case centers on Smt. Subhadramma, the elderly mother who sought protection under the , alleging persistent harassment by her son.
A Mother's Cry for Protection
The dispute began when Smt. Subhadramma approached the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, in , claiming that her son, Dr. Mahesh, and his wife were subjecting her to constant mental agony. She alleged that she was wrongfully confined in a dark room and that CCTV cameras installed by her son caused her immense stress. The Assistant Commissioner, acting under the Act, ordered the eviction of Dr. Mahesh and his family on , a decision upheld by the Deputy Commissioner on appeal on .
Dr. Mahesh contested the orders, asserting that he was the absolute owner of the property based on a 2000 will executed by his deceased father. He also pointed to a pending civil suit for partition, O.S. No. 1236 of 2023, filed by his mother, arguing that parallel proceedings were an . He relied on precedents, including and , to argue that eviction should not be ordered when a civil suit is pending or when a transfer deed lacks a maintenance condition.
Navigating the Senior Citizens Act: Section 22 vs. Section 23
The High Court drew a crucial distinction between the protective powers under Section 22 of the Act and the property-transfer provisions under Section 23. The court noted that the mother's application was not about cancelling any gift or transfer of property—which would fall under Section 23—but about protecting her from harassment under the broader umbrella of Section 22, which empowers authorities to safeguard the life and property of senior citizens.
Justice Govindaraj clarified that the precedents cited by the petitioner— Sudesh Chhikara , , and —were all rooted in Section 23 and did not apply to the present case. The court explained that Section 22 is not conditional on a prior transfer of property; it is a standalone protective measure.
"The right to life that the law guarantees to every person is not a right to a bare animal existence. For a senior citizen it carries with it the , and that includes the right to reside peacefully in her own home without fear, harassment or humiliation."
When Harassment Makes Eviction Necessary
The court applied the parameters set out in Samtola Devi , emphasizing that eviction is not automatic but may be ordered when continued harassment makes it necessary. Crucially, the court noted that the mother herself appeared via video conferencing and confirmed that she had filed the complaint of her own free will, stating that she found it "difficult to live" with her son and daughter-in-law due to constant harassment.
The court also dismissed Dr. Mahesh's claim of long-term residence, noting that his employment as a Taluk Health Officer in Sakaleshpur, about 150 kilometers from Mysuru, made daily commuting impractical. The documents he relied upon—Aadhaar cards, passport, and bank statements—were considered outdated and insufficient to prove continuous physical residence.
"The probabilities point clearly to the petitioner ordinarily residing at or near his place of work,"
the court observed.
Final Verdict: Dignity Over Property Claims
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to implement the eviction orders within 60 days. The court clarified that its observations on the wills and property title were and would not influence the pending civil suit.
"This Court accordingly answers Point No.(iv) by holding that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner do not call for interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court,"
the order stated.
The ruling reinforces the protective intent of the Senior Citizens Act, affirming that a senior citizen's in her own home cannot be undermined by property claims or prolonged harassment.
