Parents can file petition against son
to vacate the house
"In
the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father
a 'swindler' or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance. The
allegations that the aged parents have been physically assaulted, that the
other son was also assaulted and that visitors are prevented from entering the
residential house, are not specifically traversed."
HC ,Bombay Justice Rohit Deo observed
It was further observed that
“the emotional and physical well being of the aged parents
cannot be ensured unless the petitioners vacate the self-acquired residential
house.”
The parents Filed their complaint before the Tribunal under
Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 claiming that they were being mentally and physically harassed by their
son and the daughter in law Before the Court,
the parents argued that their son had forcibly taken possession of a portion of
the said house and it would pose a serious threat to their safety and security.
The father argued that he is a heart patient and needs to undergo a surgery but
has not been able to for lack for funds. Further, he said that the son must be
made to vacate the illegally occupied area because that can be used for rental
income to better maintain themselves.
The son argued that his father is not a heart patient. He also
argued that the tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in virtually treating
the application under Section 5 of the Act as a suit for eviction.
Court noted that a Single Judge of the High Court had held in
Shri Santosh Surendra Patil v. Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & Ors. 2017
All MR (Cri) 4065 that there is no illegality in evicting sons from the
residential house to ensure the peace of the senior citizen.
Court noted that converting the proceedings under Section 5 of
the Act into a suit for eviction is not wrong
a proposition of law. However, it added that if the senior citizens are
harassed and have genuine reasons to perceive that their emotional and or
physical well being and security is under threat, there is no reason to hold
that the Tribunal has no power to direct eviction.
In view of the above son’s petition chellanging jurisdiction was
dismissed.
Case Title: Namdeo and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors
High Court of Bombay ,Nagpur Bench
Writ
Petition No.2035 Of 2020
Decided -28th April 2022
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,