Is it legal for elderly people to evict their children or family members from their homes? This is what SC held

A lawsuit filed by an elderly couple seeking to remove their son from their home under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on Friday, March 28. This law provides an easier way for elderly parents, who frequently experience financial difficulties and neglect, to ask their kids for maintenance.

The Supreme Court has interpreted provisions pertaining to property transfers to allow eviction orders under certain circumstances, even though the Act does not expressly give parents the power to evict their children or family members from their homes.

What is stipulated in the Act?

Parents 60 and older who are unable to support themselves through their own income or assets may request maintenance from their children or legal heirs under the Senior Citizens Act. It places an obligation on these kids or family members to provide for their parents so they can live respectable lives. The Act also creates appellate tribunals to handle appeals against the rulings and specialized tribunals to decide these cases.

Crucially, even after transferring or gifting their property, parents can still obtain maintenance under Section 23 of the Act. A senior citizen may transfer their property under Section 23(1), provided that the recipient meets their basic physical needs and provides necessary amenities.

If this condition is not met, the transfer may be deemed fraudulent or forced, making it null and void if the senior citizen asks the tribunal to step in.

What gave the Supreme Court the right to evict?

A case involving elderly parents and their son who wanted to use the Act to evict the daughter-in-law from the family home was brought before the Supreme Court in 2020. In addition, the parties were involved in a maintenance suit and ongoing divorce proceedings, among other related legal matters.

The Bengaluru North Sub Division's Assistant Commissioner ruled in June 2015 that the property in question belonged to the parents, claiming that the daughter-in-law (DIL) had no ownership rights because she was merely residing there.

She then appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) in 2020. Despite having no "right, title, or interest" in the property, the SC decided that the DIL was entitled to protection from eviction from the "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Additionally, the court sought to clarify whether an eviction order could be issued by a tribunal created under the Senior Citizens Act.

Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee, and then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud led a bench that came to the conclusion that a tribunal could, in fact, order an eviction "if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen." They unanimously agreed that "the power to order eviction is implicit" and that elderly people have a right to maintenance from an estate under Section 23(2).

The idea that "the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen" was further upheld by the court. But the bench stressed that an eviction order can only be granted following an assessment of the "competing claims" involved in the case.

Why was eviction denied in this case?

A case was brought before the court by parents who wanted to remove their son from their home on the grounds that he had neglected them and caused them emotional and physical suffering. A tribunal in 2019 granted the parents limited relief under the Senior Citizens Act, preventing the son from encroaching on any area of the house without their permission. This limited him to the room he shared with his wife and kids and the utensil shop he ran in the same building.