Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pawan Ravindra Panchal and his wife Vaishali Pawan Panchal challenging an order of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had allowed the application of respondent no. 2, Kusum Ravindra Panchal, the mother of petitioner no. 1, directing the petitioners to vacate the residential premises and not claim any right in respect of the premises during her lifetime, and also directing petitioner no. 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000 to respondent no. 2. The background of the case is that respondent no. 2, a 69-year-old widow, filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Senior Citizens Act claiming maintenance and peaceful possession of her residential premises. She contended that after her husband's death, her son (petitioner no. 1) was given a job on compassionate basis with her consent, but later the petitioners started harassing her. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, found that the petitioners were harassing respondent no. 2 and that she was entitled to maintenance and possession of her premises. The High Court, in its analysis, held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Act to order eviction and maintenance, and that the son's right of residence is not absolute. The court noted that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect senior citizens, and the Tribunal's order was just and proper. The court also observed that the petitioners had not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision was in favor of the respondent (senior citizen mother).
Headnote
A) Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance and Eviction - Sections 4, 5, 9, 23 - The Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the jurisdiction to order the eviction of children from the residential premises of a senior citizen and to direct payment of maintenance. The son's right of residence is not absolute and is subject to the senior citizen's right to peaceful possession and maintenance. (Paras 1-25) B) Senior Citizens Act - Right of Residence - Section 23 - The right of a child to reside in the parent's property is not an absolute right and can be curtailed if the child harasses the senior citizen. The Tribunal's order directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the premises and not claim any right during the lifetime of the senior citizen is valid. (Paras 10-25) C) Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance - Section 4 - The son is liable to pay monthly maintenance to his mother, a senior citizen, as per the Tribunal's order. The quantum of maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month is reasonable and not excessive. (Paras 1-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can direct the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the residential premises of the senior citizen mother and pay maintenance, and whether such order is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners to vacate the residential premises and not claim any right during the lifetime of respondent no. 2, and directing petitioner no. 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000 to respondent no. 2.
Law Points
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Sections 4
- 5
- 9
- 23
- Right of residence of children not absolute
- Tribunal's jurisdiction to order eviction
- Maintenance obligation of children
- Senior citizen's right to peaceful possession
