Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Prafulla Khubalkar held that a son and daughter-in-law have no legal right to reside in the self-acquired house of aged parents against their wishes, especially when relations are hostile. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the matter of Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal (2025). 

What was the Background of Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, (2025) Case ? 

• The petitioners, Chandiram Anandram Hemnani (67 years) and Sushila Chandiram Hemnani (66 years), are senior citizens who own a bungalow property in Nandurbar purchased in 2008 with their own funds.  
• Their son Mukesh Chandiram Hemnani and daughter-in-law Ritu Mukesh Hemnani had performed a love marriage and requested permission to stay in the parents' house, which was granted considering their immediate needs after marriage. 
• However, disputes arose between the son and daughter-in-law, leading the daughter-in-law to harass the elderly parents and filed criminal cases against them. 
• The daughter-in-law initiated matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and in-laws. 
• Feeling constrained and deprived of enjoying their own property while still repaying the loan taken to purchase it, the senior citizen parents approached the Senior Citizens Tribunal under Sections 5 read with 20 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of their son and daughter-in-law.  
• The Tribunal initially allowed their application on 18th February 2019, directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate within 30 days.  
• The daughter-in-law challenged this order before the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, claiming the right to reside in the property due to pending matrimonial proceedings.  
• The Appellate Tribunal allowed her appeal on 7th August 2020, treating the matter as a civil dispute and directing the parents to approach civil courts for eviction. 
• During the proceedings, it was revealed that the daughter-in-law had purchased her own house property in August 2021 but continued occupying the parents' property. 
• The parents were ultimately constrained to approach the High Court challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that the Appellate Tribunal adopted a perverse approach that defeated the object and purpose of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which ensures protection to senior citizens' rights.  
• The court noted that the daughter-in-law failed to establish any legal right to reside in the suit property, as there was no court order or decree granting her maintenance or residence rights, and the criminal case against the parents had resulted in acquittal. 
• The court emphasized that merely allowing the son and daughter-in-law to reside in the house cannot confer any legal right in their favour, particularly when relations have turned hostile, and they cannot compel parents to allow them residence against their desire. 
• The court observed that the competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be compromised at the cost of senior citizens' rights to enjoy their own property independently, and any matrimonial rights she may have can be enforced independently without defeating the parents-in-law's protected rights.  
• The court found that the Appellate Tribunal's inference that eviction is merely a civil right requiring approach to civil courts was erroneous and defeated the purpose of Sections 4, 5 read with Section 22 of the Act.  
• The court noted the Appellate Tribunal's failure to consider established legal precedents and its adoption of an unduly hyper-technical approach, displaying indifference towards senior citizens' issues despite being vested with statutory powers under the beneficial legislation. 
• The court deprecated the daughter-in-law's conduct in continuing to occupy the property without any legal right and ignoring court orders, including the directive to pay Rs. 20,000 per month during the petition's pendency. 

What are the legal Provisions Referred? 

• Definition and Scope: Under Section 2(a) and 2(b), the Act defines "children" to include son, daughter, grandson and grand daughter but excludes minors, while "maintenance" encompasses provisions for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. 
• Entitlement to Maintenance: Section 4(1) provides that a senior citizen including a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of property owned by him shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5, with parents or grandparents having the right to proceed against one or more children who are not minors. 
• Obligation of Children and Relatives: Section 4(2) and 4(3) establish that the obligation of children or relatives to maintain a senior citizen extends to meeting the needs of such citizen so that the senior citizen may lead a normal life, with this obligation specifically covering both father and mother as the case may be. 
• Property-Based Maintenance Liability: Section 4(4) stipulates that any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such citizen or would inherit the property of such senior citizen, with maintenance payable in proportion to inheritance rights where multiple relatives are entitled. 
• Application Process and Authority: Section 5(1) provides that an application for maintenance may be made by the senior citizen or parent themselves, or if incapable, by any authorized person or organization, and the Tribunal may also take cognizance suo motu (on its own motion). 
• Interim Relief Powers: Section 5(2) empowers the Tribunal to, during pendency of proceedings regarding monthly allowance for maintenance, order children or relatives to make monthly allowance for interim maintenance and pay the same to the senior citizen as directed by the Tribunal. 
• Time-Bound Disposal: Section 5(4) mandates that applications for monthly allowance for maintenance and expenses must be disposed of within ninety days from the date of service of notice, with the Tribunal having power to extend this period once for a maximum of thirty days in exceptional circumstances with recorded reasons. 
• Enforcement Mechanisms: Section 5(8) provides that if children or relatives fail without sufficient cause to comply with maintenance orders, the Tribunal may issue warrants for levying amounts due and may sentence such persons to imprisonment for up to one month or until payment is made, whichever is earlier. 
• Joint Liability Provisions: Section 5(5) and 5(6) establish that where maintenance orders are made against multiple persons, the death of one does not affect the liability of others to continue paying maintenance, and children or relatives may implead other liable persons in maintenance applications. 
• Payment Timeline and Recovery: Section 5(7) and 5(8) provide that allowances for maintenance and expenses are payable from the date of the order or from the date of application for maintenance, with warrant recovery applications required within three months from when amounts became due under the proviso to Section 5(8).