CCTV captures son ‘assaulting’ 83-year-old father, Bombay High Court backs his eviction

The court pointed out that things came to such a pass that the senior citizen had to approach law enforcement agencies more than once to protect himself. “The images in the CCTV footage are distressing, to say the least,” it remarked.

The tribunals were justified in concluding that it was necessary to evict the petitioner from the premises in order to allow the senior citizen to live in peace, the court noted.

Justice N J Jamadar noted that the allegations against the petitioner are supported by documents.

Father seeks son’s eviction

The 83-year-old father had approached the tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking his 52-year-old son’s eviction from the house.

The father alleged that his son had an abusive and aggressive temperament, was an alcoholic, repeatedly abused and assaulted him and other family members, and that he was also pressured to sell properties and give him money. He also lodged two assault complaints with the police following alleged incidents in July 2022 and February 2023. CCTV footage and medical records were later relied upon to support the allegations.

The son denied the allegations, claiming that his brother and sister-in-law had fabricated the accusations. He argued that his father was not the sole owner of the property, and claimed he financially supported his parents, including meeting their medical and insurance expenses.

However, on September 11, 2024, the maintenance tribunal ordered the son to vacate the house. The appellate tribunal upheld the order on December 12, 2024. The son then approached the high court challenging both orders.

Appearing for the petitioner-son, advocate Sonal Parab along with advocates Esha Rane and Sudhanshu Sawant, submitted that the provisions of the 2007 Act were weaponised to evict the petitioner from the residence.

Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, appearing for the father, submitted that the petitioner’s abusive and aggressive behaviour is not only documented in the reports lodged by the senior citizen and other family members, but also captured in CCTV footage. The footage clearly shows that the petitioner assaulted his father.

Disputes can’t justify abuse: Order

The high court observed that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation intended to protect senior citizens from neglect, harassment and deprivation of their basic needs, including their right to residence and protection of property.

The court held that eviction cannot be ruled out just because the senior citizen had not specifically sought maintenance. Where a child or relative makes it impossible for a senior citizen to peacefully occupy his own home, seeking eviction can form part of enforcing the senior citizen’s right to live a normal and dignified life. It stressed that the definition of “maintenance” includes residence, and this obligation has a negative aspect too: children or relatives must not deprive a senior citizen of the use and occupation of his own residence.

The court rejected the argument that only two police complaints had been made in 13 years, observing, “The submission loses sight of the fact that generally parents do not take recourse to the law enforcement agencies against their children. It is only after all the options are exhausted that, by way of last resort, the matter is reported to the police.”

It noted that the allegations against the petitioner are supported by documents. The judge observed that whatever property disputes may have existed between the siblings, they could not justify the son’s alleged abusive conduct, which seriously affected the father’s right to live a peaceful and dignified life.

Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the eviction orders, noting that the order had already been implemented and had restored peace and normalcy to the elderly man’s life.