Upholding son’s eviction from home, court says 93-year-old mother must live in peace

5 min readNew DelhiJul 6, 2026 12:18 PM IST

The elderly woman alleged before the Maintenance Tribunal that her son and his wife neglected, abused and harassed her and that she feared for her safety. (AI-generated image)

A 93-year-old widow does not have to tolerate harassment simply because she receives a pension, the Chhattisgarh High Court has said while upholding the eviction of her 65-year-old son and his wife from their family home. The court ruled that the Senior Citizens Act not only safeguards an elderly person’s right to maintenance, but also their right to live with peace and dignity.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by Devendra Khanna, 65, and his wife Neerja. The couple had challenged orders passed by the Bilaspur Maintenance Tribunal and the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal directing them to vacate the first floor of a family house after a complaint by Devendra’s mother, Santosh Khanna, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

“A senior citizen who is financially secure may yet be subjected to harassment, coercion, abuse or unlawful interference in her residence by her children or relatives,” the court said on July 2, adding that it would be against the Act’s intention if she is left without solution in such a situation “merely because she does not seek a quantified amount of monthly maintenance” from the son.

The son had argued that his mother was financially independent because she received a pension and had not sought monthly maintenance. He also disputed her ownership of the property. Rejecting these arguments, the high court held that the Senior Citizens Act is a welfare legislation intended to protect elderly persons from harassment and ensure they can live peacefully amid pending ownership disputes before civil or revenue authorities.

According to the case details, Santosh lived on the ground floor of the family home in Bilaspur, while her elder son and daughter-in-law occupied the first floor. She alleged before the Maintenance Tribunal that the couple neglected, abused and harassed her and that she feared for her safety. Besides seeking their eviction, she also sought refund of Rs 25 lakh and compensation of Rs 5 lakh.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that property disputes can’t prevent authorities from granting relief to protect an elderly person’s residence and dignity.

The petitioners opposed the proceedings, arguing that the dispute was essentially over property ownership and not maintenance. They claimed that one portion of the property had been purchased by the daughter-in-law Neerja before her marriage and that ownership issues could only be decided by a civil court. They also alleged that the proceedings had been initiated at the instance of Devendra’s younger brother to dispossess them.

The tribunal directed the couple to vacate the premises on September 12, 2024. Their appeal was dismissed on November 25, 2024, prompting them to move the high court.

Story continues below this ad

Property dispute no shield: Court

The high court said the Senior Citizens Act is a legislation enacted to protect elderly parents from neglect, abuse and deprivation. It should be read liberally so as to advance its purpose, rather than taking a “narrow or hyper-technical approach”.

Rejecting the argument that pension received by the mother made the proceedings unnecessary, the court said that under the Act, maintenance cannot be confined to monetary assistance alone.

The eviction order was not a declaration of ownership but a welfare measure aimed at ensuring the elderly mother’s peaceful residence and protect her from harassment. If the petitioners believed they had independent ownership rights, they were free to approach the appropriate civil forum.

The court acknowledged that mutation entries alone do not confer ownership and that title disputes must be decided by competent courts. However, it held that such disputes cannot prevent authorities from granting effective relief to protect an elderly person’s residence and dignity under the 2007 Act.

It rejected the argument that the petitioners could not be evicted because they too were senior citizens and said the Act does not give one senior citizen the rights to occupy the residential premises of another senior citizen against their wishes.

Plea dismissed

Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, the high court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction order. It also underlined that the Senior Citizens Act existed to protect elderly citizens’ dignity, security and right to live peacefully in their own homes.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

Chhattisgarh High Court

elderly

eviction

pension