Gauhati High Court orders sons to vacate 86-year-old father’s home, rules pension doesn’t buy peace, emotional security

The bench noted that the elderly parents often permit their children to reside in their house not by executing formal arrangements but by virtue of family arrangements, trust, and affection.

The Gauhati High Court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by two brothers challenging the November 18, 2025, order of a single judge, which upheld the eviction order passed against them from the self-acquired property of their father, a retired bank employee.

The high court noted that the elderly parents often permit their children to reside in their house not by executing formal, legal documents but by virtue of family arrangements, trust, and affection. 

“If such permissive occupation is later used to deprive the senior citizen of peaceful enjoyment of his/her own property, the statute (Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act) cannot be interpreted in a manner that leaves the senior citizen remediless under such beneficial legislation,” the Gauhati High Court added. 

‘No independent title of sons’

• The high court noted that the sons themselves admit that their occupation originated from permission granted by their father, and they do not assert any independent title on the said property. 
• The high court noted that there was no whisper of an allegation of any domestic violence by the daughters-in-law. 
• The court, therefore, held that such a contention cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the appellate stage, in the absence of any foundational pleadings or proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• The court, on February 20, interacted with the father and the two sons in the presence of their respective advocates to mediate between the father and sons so that the dispute is resolved, even temporarily.
• However, the bench observed that there was a “complete lack of communication” between the father and sons despite them living on the same floor of the house.
• The court further noted that the father had remained unhappy for several years with the conduct of his sons and daughters-in-law, who allegedly failed to help him even during his “climactic period” of illness and vulnerability.
• The high court ultimately granted the sons 90 days to vacate the premises voluntarily.

Weakening of traditional joint family system

• The high court pointed out that the submissions that a senior citizen receiving a pension is not entitled to invoke the protection of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act 2007). 
• The court emphasised that the Act does not require a senior citizen to become penniless or destitute before approaching the authorities under the Act 2007. 
• The court pointed out that the protection contemplated under the Act, 2007, extends beyond mere economic survival. 
• The court added that the object of the Act, 2007, is to protect the life, dignity, residence, and property of senior citizens.
• The court mentioned that if a senior citizen is compelled to live in fear, insecurity or mental distress within their own house because of their children’s conduct, the authorities cannot be rendered powerless merely because no formal deed of transfer exists.
• The court further added that the reason for the Act 2007 reflects the growing concern of the legislature regarding the conditions of elderly persons in the changing social structure of the country. 
• It was noticed that with the gradual weakening of the traditional joint family system, a large number of elderly persons were being left uncared for and were exposed to emotional neglect, insecurity and lack of physical and financial support 
• The court noted that any person who is a relative, having sufficient means, and who is in possession of the property of the senior citizen or who would inherit such property, should maintain such seniority. 

Declared sons ‘Tejya Putra’

It was placed on record that the father is a senior citizen and the admitted owner of the property in question, standing on his self-acquired land situated at Dhubri Town. It was added that the sons, along with their respective family members, including their wives, were residing in a portion of the said premises with the permission of their father. 

The father, alleging neglect, harassment and interference with his peaceful enjoyment of the property at the hands of his sons and their family members, approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of his sons from the premises. 

He pleaded before the tribunal that he no longer desired the sons and their family members to continue occupying the premises, and he had publicly declared the severance of his relationship with them by declaring them “Tejya Putra” (disowned son or disinherited son). 

The tribunal in its November 2025 order finally held that the eviction of sons and their family was necessary for securing the safety, dignity and peaceful residence of the senior citizen. 

Aggrieved by the same, the sons moved the Guahati High Court with a contention that their father admittedly receives a pension and possesses sufficient means to maintain himself, and therefore, the provisions of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act, 2007) could not have been invoked. 

The sons also contended that at least the daughters-in-law have the right to continue in occupation of the property for the reason that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 

The single judge in its order held that the right to maintenance under the Act, 2007, is not confined merely to monetary assistance, but includes the right of a senior citizen to reside peacefully and with dignity in his own property and that eviction, in an appropriate case, would be an incident of such right.