The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are aimed at ensuring that senior citizens can enjoy their twilight years in peace without facing the specter of continuous bickering and quarrels amongst their children which would disrupt their tranquil existence.
The high court observed that proceedings drawn under the 2007 Act are not, at least on a fundamental plane, concerned with the civil rights that may be claimed by warring siblings and family members over property.
The high court's order came while dismissing a plea by two men, challenging an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner who had ordered their eviction from their father's house.
Advertisement
“The SDM (sub-divisional magistrate) also took note of the allegation that the petitioners (two sons) here quite apart from not supporting the senior citizen (father) also used to assault and beat him and his other family members. “It is these facts which have weighed with the authorities constituted under the 2007 Act to frame the orders of eviction,” Justice Yashwant Varma said.
The high court dismissed the two sons' plea challenging the divisional commissioner's eviction order and said there was no ground to interfere with the order.
“It becomes pertinent to observe that proceedings drawn under the 2007 Act are not, at least on a fundamental plane, concerned with the civil rights that may be claimed by warring siblings and family members over property. It is essentially aimed at ensuring that senior citizens are able to enjoy their twilight years in peace without facing the specter of continuous bickering and quarrels amongst siblings which would necessarily disrupt their tranquil existence that the legislation seeks to protect,” it said.
Advertisement
The senior citizen had submitted that he was the owner of the house in Baljeet Nagar here and while his youngest son takes care of him and his basic needs and medical requirements, his other two sons do not support him and also mistreat and beat him and his family. He had said that he wanted to evict those two sons from his property and they wanted to sell the house and dispossess him even though he had issued a public notice in 2018 disowning and barring them.
Advocate Arun Panwar, representing the divisional commissioner, filed a 2018 report of the SDM who had given details of the versions of the complainant's father and his two sons in the matter. “Hence, the title documents of the house of the complainant are not challenged by … (his two sons). But they are claiming right based on their expenses and subsequent agreement,” the report stated.
While one of the two sons said that he had built his house, on a part of the property, at his own expense and with the consent of his father so he should not be evicted, the other son said that a settlement had taken place between him and his father in which he was his part of the property.
However, the complainant denied this agreement and stated that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on this document and that he does not wish to give his property to these two sons.
