Delhi High Court Grants Eviction of Son & Daughter-in-Law, Upholding Legal and Moral Duty to Provide for Elderly Mother

The Delhi High Court, recognizing the filial duty incumbent upon offspring to cater for aging parents, upheld the petition of a senior citizen for the expulsion of her son and daughter-in-law. Despite contested assertions pertaining to property ownership and the service of legal notifications, the Court adjudicated in favor of the senior citizen (petitioner), sanctioning her request for eviction pursuant to Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

The petitioner invoked provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act to seek the removal of her son (Respondent 2) and daughter-in-law (Respondent 3) from her abode, citing maltreatment as grounds and asserting her inability to peacefully cohabit within her own domicile.

Subsequent to the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Authority, a subsequent writ petition contesting said determination was lodged.

A Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted with the objective to provide a mechanism to secure maintenance and ensure welfare of senior citizens left bereft of support, financial or otherwise. The Act being a social legislation, ought to be construed liberally and its provisions should be implemented in light of the aims and objectives with which the Act was enacted, which for all intents and purposes in the immediate case herein is to ensure that a senior citizen without any semblance of support is not further deprived of the property and so that there is no threat to their life.”

Advocate Aakansha Kaul appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Udit Malik appeared for the Respondents.

The Court, after considering arguments from both sides, emphasized the objectives of the Senior Citizens Act, which aims to protect the interests of senior citizens. It highlighted the duty of children to maintain their parents, especially in cases where the senior citizen has no independent source of income. The Court added, “It is moral and legal obligation of every son to maintain his mother. In fact Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizens Act casts an obligation on the children to maintain a senior citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life. Though the Petitioner has not claimed a right to be maintained, the fact that the Court had passed an order on 21.04.2023, even if it is presumed that it was in the absence of service to the Respondents, it is still the obligation of the Respondents to comply with the directions passed by the Court.”

Despite the disputes concerning property ownership and the delivery of legal notifications, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, thus approving her eviction request in line with Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

The Court further said, “The refusal of the Respondent even to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner for use and occupation of the property and the preparedness of the Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, to face contempt and even necessary go to jail, speaks volumes of the conduct of Respondent No.2 and in the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the object of the Senior Citizens Act and Rule 22 of the Senior Citizen Rules which is for the welfare of the senior citizen and protection of the life and property of the senior citizen, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Pursuant to this ruling, the Court instructed Respondent 2 to pay a monthly maintenance sum to the Petitioner, emphasizing his obligation to furnish financial assistance to his mother.