Parents can’t be forced to Shelter Hostile Son, Daughter-in-law: Bombay High Court

In a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, senior citizen petitioners challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order which overturned the eviction order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The original Tribunal had directed the petitioners' son and daughter-in-law to vacate their house within 30 days as Bombay high court upholds Parents can’t be forced to shelter hostile son, daughter-in- law. Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s ruling, finding it legally unsustainable and inconsistent with the objectives of the Senior Citizens Act.

The case arose after the petitioners allowed their son and daughter-in-law to live in their self-acquired property post-marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord and subsequent harassment, the daughter-in-law initiated multiple litigations against the elderly couple and their son like- criminal proceedings under the Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners, thus, sought relief under the Act as parents can’t be forced to shelter hostile son, daughter-in- law ordered by the Bombay High Court. Despite the Tribunal allowing their application for eviction, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, treating the dispute as a civil matter and advising the petitioners to approach civil courts.

The High Court observed that this view undermined the statutory rights granted to senior citizens. It was held that the petitioners were rightful owners of the property with no legal claims made by the respondents. The daughter-in-law's claim of residence was unsupported by any order under the Domestic Violence Act or matrimonial laws. Furthermore, during the case’s pendency, she had purchased another property, indicating her ability to reside elsewhere.

The Court underscored that the Senior Citizens Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting aged parents from being ousted or harassed by their children or relatives. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Bombay High Court’s precedent in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, the Court reaffirmed that applications seeking eviction under the Act are maintainable and cannot be brushed aside as mere civil disputes.

It was also noted that the respondents failed to comply with interim directions of depositing Rs 20,000 monthly and did not appear during final hearings. The High Court restored the original eviction order and directed the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the premises within 30 days, holding the daughter-in-law liable for arrears and costs due to her continued unauthorized occupation.

Case details- [Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 7794 of 2020, decided on 18-6-2025].