Guwahati, May 24: The Gauhati High Court has upheld the eviction of two sons and their families from the self-acquired property of their 86-year-old father in Assam’s Dhubri, observing that senior citizens are not required to be financially dependent or helpless to seek protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Ashutosh Kumar and Arun Dev Choudhury, which dismissed an appeal filed by the sons challenging an eviction order earlier passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and subsequently upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court.
The dispute arose from a petition filed by retired bank employee Jiban Krishna Kundu, who alleged that his sons had subjected him to harassment and neglect while disrupting his peaceful stay at his residence. The Tribunal had previously concluded that the relationship between the family members had deteriorated completely and found that the continued occupation of the property by the sons adversely affected the elderly man’s dignity, safety and right to peaceful enjoyment of his own property.
The sons argued before the court that their father’s pension and financial security made him ineligible for relief under the provisions of the Act. However, the High Court rejected the contention, observing that economic stability by itself does not guarantee emotional well-being, dignity or a peaceful environment for senior citizens.
The Bench further clarified that the law is not restricted only to cases involving formal transfer of property rights. It held that even permissive occupation of a property by children can come within the scope of the legislation if such occupation deprives elderly parents of safety and peaceful living conditions.
The court also dismissed claims raised by the daughters-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, noting that no such proceedings or pleas had been initiated before any competent forum earlier.
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court granted the appellants 90 days to vacate the property voluntarily, stating that the Tribunal would be free to proceed in accordance with law if they fail to do so.
