Bombay High Court Empowers Tribunal to Protect Senior Citizen's Property in a "Conscience-Shocking" Case of Abandonment

Mumbai: In a judgment that underscores the statutory and moral duty of children to care for their parents, the Bombay High Court has held that a Maintenance Tribunal has the authority to pass protective orders, including restraining a child from dealing with a parent's property, to ensure the parent's welfare. The division bench of Justices Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and A. S. Gadkari described the case as one that "shocks the conscience of the Court," involving a son who allegedly abandoned his 76-year-old mother in a hospital ICU, refusing to pay bills or take her home under the pretext of medical negligence.

The Court directed the State to take charge of the ailing mother if the son fails to shift her to a government hospital and froze the son's ability to transact with his mother's residential flat.

Background of the Case

The Bandra Holy Family Hospital filed a writ petition seeking directions for the State to take custody of Mrs. Mohini Puri, a 76-year-old patient. She was admitted by her son (Respondent No. 3) on August 24, 2025, for a stroke. The hospital claimed that after making an initial payment, the son refused to pay the outstanding bill of approximately Rs. 16 lakh and also refused to take his mother home, despite her being medically fit for discharge since October 4, 2025. Instead, he raised allegations of medical negligence, which the hospital termed a "clear afterthought" to avoid his responsibilities.

The hospital argued it was acting as a "good Samaritan," continuing to care for Mrs. Puri while her indefinite stay in the ICU not only posed a risk of infection to her but also blocked a critical bed needed for other emergency patients. Despite complaints to the police and the Senior Citizens Tribunal, no concrete action was taken.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner (The Hospital): Represented by Advocate Pradip Chavan, the hospital contended that the son’s conduct—including abusive behavior towards staff and refusal to cooperate—amounted to abandonment. They invoked provisions of * The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 * (Senior Citizens Act) and * The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 *.

• Respondent No. 3 (The Son): Advocate Gauri Joglekar, appearing for the son, argued that he disputed the hospital's line of treatment and needed original medical records for a second opinion. He claimed financial inability to pay the outstanding bills. In a dramatic turn, the son later refused to give an undertaking to the court that he would care for his mother and left the court premises without instructing his lawyer further.

• Respondents No. 1 & 2 (The State): Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf assisted the court, arguing that if the son genuinely believed there was medical negligence, the prudent course would be to take his mother home and then pursue legal remedies. He submitted that the son's actions prima facie constituted abandonment under the Senior Citizens Act, and the State was prepared to step in to care for the patient if required.

Court's Rulings and Legal Interpretation

The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the son's conduct and the inaction of the police and the Senior Citizens Tribunal. The bench held that the son's refusal to take his mother home while continuing to avail the hospital's services was an "unpardonable" breach of his "pious, moral, and statutory duty."

The Court made several significant legal observations:

• Interpreting Social Welfare Legislation: The bench emphasized that welfare laws like the Senior Citizens Act must be interpreted liberally to advance their objectives. The Court held that protecting a senior citizen's property is intrinsically linked to their right to life, dignity, and health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Powers of the Maintenance Tribunal: In a crucial interpretation of Section 23 (2) of the Senior Citizens Act, the court ruled that the Tribunal's power to enforce a senior citizen's "right to receive maintenance out of an estate" includes the power to pass protective orders. The judgment stated:

• > "Appropriate protective orders including but not limited, injunctions, restraint orders and or eviction orders, would be incidental and a necessity to the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection in its real and true sense."

• Abandonment as an Offence: The Court found a prima facie case of "exposure and abandonment" under Section 24 of the Senior Citizens Act. It noted that if the State has to step in, the offence against the son would be clearly made out.

Final Directions

The Bombay High Court issued a series of directives to balance equities and ensure the patient's welfare: 1. The son was ordered to shift his mother to the ICU of Bhabha Hospital, Bandra, by the next morning at his own cost. 2. If he fails, the State Government is directed to take charge of the patient and provide all necessary medical care. 3. The Senior Citizens Tribunal was instructed to take suo motu cognizance and pass necessary orders under Section 23 of the Act to protect Mrs. Puri's properties for her well-being. 4. The son is restrained from dealing with his mother’s residential flat in Bandra without prior leave of the court. 5. He must also furnish an affidavit detailing all of his mother's movable and immovable properties.

The hospital was granted liberty to pursue legal remedies for the recovery of its dues. The matter is listed for compliance on November 24, 2025.