'We Are On The Brink Of One Person One Family': SC Upholds Order Against Eviction Of Eldest Son
The apex court was dealing with an "unfortunate" case, where parents and their children were in litigation against each other.
The Supreme Court on March 27, 2025, said that the very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded in the country and we are on the brink of one person one family. Court was dealing with an “unfortunate" case, where parents and their children were in litigation against each other.
“In India we believe in ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world," a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti ruled.
related stories
Dealing with a plea filed by a woman seeking eviction of her eldest son from her house under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the bench said the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person.
It is only on account of the observations in S Vanitha Vs Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (2021) that the tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens, the bench pointed out.
In a given case, the tribunal “may order" eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case, the bench said referring to Urmila Dixit Vs Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025).
The apex court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s judgment of August 18, 2023, which set aside the order of eviction against the eldest son of the appellant Samtola Devi, holding it as “well-considered, equitable and justified".
It said there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of the son from a portion of the house; rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.
The bench said the high court appeared to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction order passed by the tribunal and to maintain the other conditions imposed by the tribunal.
It also pointed out the appellate tribunal had not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of the son or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.
As per the facts of the matter, one Kallu Mal, who died eventually, and his wife Samtola Devi, the appellant before the top court, had three sons and two daughters. Their relations were not cordial.
On August 4, 2014, Kallu Mal filed a plea before the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur alleging that his eldest son often beat him and tortured him mentally and physically, and sought appropriate action against him.
In 2017, parents initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons before the principal judge, family court, Sultanpur. The family court on December 4, 2018, awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000 to Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi each, payable equally by two sons every month. In 2018, against his parents’ wishes, the eldest son married a girl from another caste.
In 2019, the parents initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur.
The apex court noted that Kallu Mal in the said case alleged that his self-acquired property had shops in the lower part. In one of the shops, he was operating his utensil business from 1971 till 2010. However, taking advantage of his illness, the business of the said shop was taken over by his eldest son who later started pressuring him to sell out the house.
The father alleged that the son was not looking after his daily needs, not even his medical expenditure, but rather was torturing him mentally and physically. He requested the tribunal to evict his eldest son from the house so that he could make his own arrangements for peaceful living.
The tribunal directed the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents’ except the shop in which he was carrying out the business. The tribunal warned him of eviction proceedings if he continued to humiliate his parents.
Not satisfied by the decision, the parents preferred an appeal before the appellate tribunal, District Magistrate Sultanpur, which set aside the order passed by the SDM and directed for the eviction of the eldest son.
The eldest son approached the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the eviction order but did not interfere with the other directions passed by the tribunal.
Having examined the matter, the court said it was not correct to allege that the property exclusively belonged to Kallu Mal and that the eldest son had no legal right to reside therein.
It is apparent that the father had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots, one in favour of his son-in-law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh, and he had gifted one shop to the younger daughter, the court noted.
“Therefore, ex-facie, he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it," the bench said.
The court also found no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the high court’s order the eldest son had in any way humiliated his parents, especially the appellant (mother) or interfered with her living.
The bench also noted it was not in dispute that he had been paying maintenance as directed by the family court.
“If he has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father, in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein," the bench held.
- Location :
- First Published: