The decision that a son is not expected to brand his aged father a ‘swindler’ or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance was decided by the Bombay High Court through Justice Rohit B. Deo in the case of Namdeo v. Geeta (WRIT PETITION NO.2035 OF 2020)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioners were respondents 2 and 3’s son and daughter-in-law, and they challenged the order made by the Tribunal established under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in which the petitioners were ordered to vacate the respondents’ self-acquired residential house.
Petitioners contended that the Act does not provide for an eviction remedy and that the Tribunal erred in considering the application under Section 5 of the Act as an action for eviction.
Respondents alleged that they had built a residential residence with their own money and that petitioner 1 illegally and violently seized control of a portion of the house and was acting in a way that posed a substantial threat to the safety and security of respondents 2 and 3. Furthermore, the respondents contended that if the petitioners evacuate the illegally occupied section, the said portion can be rented out, and the rental money will allow respondents 2 and 3 to better support themselves. Respondents 2 and 3 specifically accused their son and daughter-in-law of physical abuse and barred well-wishers and other sons of respondents 2 and 3 from accessing the residential residence.
The High Court stated that unless the petitioners are removed, the respondents 2 and 3’s safety and security will be jeopardized.
The Bench held that the mental and physical well-being of the elderly respondents 2 and 3 could not be guaranteed unless the petitioners evacuate respondent 2’s self-acquired residential residence. The High Court ruled that the eviction order was absolutely essential to protect the parents’ physical and mental health and safety.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY