Senior Citizens Need Not Be “Penniless or Destitute” To Seek Protection Under 2007 Act: Gauhati HC Upholds Son’s Eviction [Read Order]

Gauhati: A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has dismissed an intra-court writ appeal preferred by two sons challenging their eviction from the self-acquired residential property of their 86-year-old father, a retired bank employee residing at Dhubri, Assam, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury upheld concurrent findings of the Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri and the learned Single Judge and held, inter alia, that a senior citizen is not required to be penniless or destitute before invoking the protection of the Act, as financial sufficiency by itself does not ensure peaceful living, emotional security or a dignified residence.

An elderly Dhubri resident, Jiban Krishna Kundu, approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of his two sons and their families from his residential property, alleging harassment, neglect, denial of care, and fraudulent dealings involving his property. The Tribunal found that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down and observed that the sons’ continued occupation adversely affected the senior citizen’s safety, dignity, and peaceful enjoyment of his home. It accordingly ordered eviction. The Gauhati High Court Single Judge subsequently upheld the Tribunal’s order, leading to the present writ appeal by the sons.

Before the Division Bench, the appellants raised three principal contentions. First, that since the father admittedly received a pension and had sufficient means to maintain himself, the Act, 2007 could not have been invoked at all. Second, that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to direct eviction under Section 23 of the Act in the absence of a formal transfer of property subject to a condition of maintenance, the appellants’ occupation having originated from a family arrangement and not any deed of transfer. Third, for the first time at the appellate stage, it was urged that the daughters-in-law were entitled to remain in occupation as the premises constituted a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court recorded that during the course of proceedings, on 20.02.2026, it had interacted with the father and sons in the presence of their respective counsel and had requested the learned advocates for the State and the respondent No. 2 to attempt mediation. Those efforts, however, did not yield any result. The Bench observed that despite the sons expressing before it a willingness to mend their ways, there existed a complete trust deficit between the father and sons, and the father neither desired any financial contribution from the appellants nor wished them to remain in the premises.

Turning to the legal questions, the Court undertook a detailed examination of the object, scheme and legislative philosophy underlying the Act, 2007. It observed that Parliament had enacted the legislation in recognition of the weakening of the traditional joint family system and the consequent exposure of elderly persons to emotional neglect, insecurity and lack of physical and financial support. The Court held that the statute is fundamentally a social welfare legislation intended to secure dignity, peace, emotional security and the protection of the life and property of senior citizens, and that neglect under the Act is not confined to financial neglect but equally encompasses emotional harassment, deprivation of peaceful residence and interference with the independent enjoyment of property.

On the definition of maintenance under Section 2(b) of the Act, the Court noted that Parliament had employed an inclusive definition expressly incorporating residence within its ambit, reflecting a conscious legislative intent that maintenance extends beyond monetary support to conditions necessary for living with dignity and security. Likewise, Section 2(f) defines property in the widest terms to include rights and interests in property, encompassing rights of occupation, possession and enjoyment. The Court held that Section 4 of the Act, which imposes the obligation of maintenance upon children and relatives, contemplates not merely formal transferees but also persons in possession of the property of a senior citizen, thus making possession itself a legally relevant factor under the statutory scheme.

On the appellants’ principal contention that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applies only to formal transfers of property, the Division Bench rejected the argument outright. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. S. Vanitha, the Court held that the expression “transfer” under Section 23 cannot be construed narrowly so as to cover only registered conveyances. Interpreting the provision purposively, the Bench observed that the term “otherwise” in Section 23, read with the broad definition of “property” under Section 2(f), also encompasses permissive occupation by children or relatives where such occupation deprives a senior citizen of peaceful enjoyment, dignity, safety, or security within his own residence.

It further observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a welfare legislation intended to secure not merely the physical survival of senior citizens but also their dignity, autonomy, safety, and peaceful enjoyment of property. Consequently, its provisions must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation rather than a restrictive or hyper-technical construction that undermines the legislative intent. The Bench emphasised that the statute was enacted to provide speedy and effective remedies to elderly persons facing neglect, abuse, or dispossession within their own homes, and therefore its protection cannot be confined only to situations involving formally documented property transfers.

Rejecting the appellants’ contention that the father’s pensionary income disentitled him from seeking relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, the Court held that a senior citizen need not be rendered penniless or destitute before invoking the statute’s protection. The Bench observed that financial security alone does not guarantee peaceful living, emotional well-being, or a dignified residence, and that the Act is intended to safeguard these broader aspects of senior citizens’ lives. The Court further declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the Single Judge that the appellants’ continued occupation of the property was detrimental to the respondent’s dignity and peaceful enjoyment of his own home.

Additionally, the Bench also rejected the appellants’ reliance on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, observing that the contention had been raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court noted that the daughters-in-law had never instituted any proceedings under the 2005 Act before any forum, no foundational pleadings had been made, and no allegation of domestic violence had ever been raised. In the absence of any such factual foundation, the Bench held that the plea could not be entertained at the appellate stage to defeat the protection available to the elderly father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Dismissing the appeal and upholding the eviction order, the Division Bench granted the appellants liberty to vacate the premises on their own within 90 days from the date of the judgment, failing which the Tribunal was directed to proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the adjudication is confined to the jurisdiction exercisable under the Act, 2007 and does not determine any independent civil title or the validity of any disputed property transaction, which may be agitated before a competent civil forum.

Appearance: The appellants were represented by Mr. T. Bharali, Advocate. The respondents were represented by Ms. R. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. S.E. Murtaza and Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocates.

Case Title: Joy Brata Kundu & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr., WA No. 403 of 2025

[Read Order]