Senior Citizens Act Must Be Liberally Construed: Rajasthan HC Upholds Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-Law [Read Judgment]

Rajasthan: Holding that the mandate and object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation that must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of senior citizens, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has dismissed a writ petition filed by a son and daughter-in-law challenging an eviction order directing them to vacate the property belonging to the husband’s octogenarian parents.

The judgment was delivered on 27th April 2026 by Justice Sameer Jain in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11275/2024.

The case arose from an intergenerational family dispute concerning a Jaipur property owned by an 82-year-old mother, where she and her 86-year-old husband sought eviction of their son, daughter-in-law, and grandson under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The matter involved prolonged litigation before multiple forums, including the Tribunal, the Additional District Judge, and the Rajasthan High Court.

The Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur, in exercise of appellate powers under the Act, had, by order dated 13th June 2024 in Senior Citizen Appeal No. 57/2023, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the aged parents and passed an eviction order directing the petitioners to vacate the property in question. It is this order that was challenged by the son, his wife, and their son before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the sensitivity of the matter, all parties being senior citizens save for Petitioner No. 3, the High Court had initially directed the parties to appear in person and explore the possibility of an amicable resolution through mediation. However, despite compliance with this direction, the parties were not inclined to settle the dispute amicably or opt for mediation.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that although the property was registered in the mother’s name, it had been substantially financed by Petitioner No. 1. They also argued that Petitioner No. 3 had grown up in the property, the aged parents had independent financial support through pension and other children, and that eviction would seriously affect the petitioners’ livelihood and personal life given their limited means and family responsibilities.

The respondents argued that the petitioners had subjected the aged parents to abusive behaviour, threats, and frequent quarrels, thereby disturbing their peaceful living and infringing their right to live with dignity and security in old age. They further contended that the property exclusively belonged to the respondent mother, as all utility bills and ownership documents stood in her name, and that the petitioners’ claim over the property had already been weakened by dismissal of their injunction application in separate civil proceedings. The respondents relied upon the decisions in Rakesh Leeladhar Soni v. Smt. Premlata Leeladhar Soni, Smt. Rashmi Saxena v. Suresh Prakash Saxena, and Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Leela Bai Mane in support of their contention that eviction orders can be passed to protect the rights and peaceful living of senior citizens.

The High Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, reiterating the well-settled position that such jurisdiction is supervisory in nature, to be exercised sparingly only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority, and not to re-appreciate evidence or act as a court of appeal. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Rajani Manohar Kuntha and Anr. v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya and Ors., arising out of SLP (C) No. 30407 of 2024, the Court held that the power under Article 227 is confined to cases of patent perversity or jurisdictional error, and that the High Court cannot interfere merely because another view is possible.

Relying upon S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation intended to secure the protection, dignity, and peaceful living of senior citizens, and that eviction orders may validly be passed to safeguard such rights. The Court held that where children or relatives fail in their obligation to maintain and protect senior citizens, competent authorities are empowered to direct their eviction to ensure the elderly can live with dignity and peace. Referring to Rule 20(5) of the 2010 Rules, the Court further observed that the District Magistrate is duty-bound to protect the life and property of senior citizens where either is under threat, and upheld the appellate authority’s finding that eviction of the son and his family from the mother’s property was permissible under the Act and Rules.

The High Court found that the impugned order dated 13th June 2024 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity, and that the material on record clearly indicates that the continuance of the petitioners in the premises has led to an atmosphere of discord, as was also substantiated by the respondent appearing before the Court in person.

The Court further noted that the respondents are octogenarians who have allegedly been subjected to threats at the hands of the petitioners, thereby impinging upon their constitutionally guaranteed right to live with dignity and peace under Article 21 of the Constitution read with the Act of 2007. It was further taken into account that the petitioners are not without means, as they are earning an income, and that Petitioner No. 3 is a young and able-bodied individual who is employable.

Accordingly, the High Court, holding that the Act of 2007, being a beneficial legislation, must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of senior citizens, dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. It further directed that the petitioners shall comply with the eviction order in its letter and spirit and shall not, in any manner, disturb the peaceful living of the respondents.

Case Title: Krishnawtar Nagar and Others v. Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11275/2024

[Read Judgment]