Senior Citizens Act | Eviction Last Resort, Cannot Be Ordered Simply On Asking: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Son

CASE TITLE: Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. [ WRIT – C No. – 35884 of 2019]

DECIDED ON: 18.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.


The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an individual cannot be removed from their residence solely based on the request of a senior citizen as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.


The petitioner asserted that due to his marriage to a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, his father filed an FIR against him. However, this case was resolved in the petitioner’s favor. Subsequently, maintenance proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his brother, with a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000, of which the petitioner was required to pay half.

Additionally, the petitioner’s parents filed for maintenance under section 7(1) of the 2007 Act. The Sub. Divisional Magistrate issued an order for maintenance, which the petitioner did not contest, resulting in ongoing monthly payments. However, the District Magistrate, on appeal, ordered the petitioner’s eviction.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the District Magistrate overlooked the fact that the petitioner owned a 1/6th share of the property and was already complying with maintenance obligations as per court orders and the Act.

It was further contended that the District Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by ordering eviction and dispossession. The petitioner had been subjected to multiple legal actions due to his parents’ disapproval of his marriage. The petitioner’s siblings had continued the eviction proceedings after the father’s passing with the aim to sell the property.

Reference was made to the case of Randhir Singh v. District Magistrate, Faizabad and Others, in which the Allahabad High Court held that “interference is unwarranted” when senior citizens are residing elsewhere voluntarily even though they have the option to live in their house. Similarly, it was argued that the petitioner and his mother lived in separate parts of the house without any hindrance to the mother’s life.

Conversely, the counsel for the opposing parties alleged parental harassment and abuse in support of the eviction order.


The Court acknowledged that the purpose of the 2007 Act was to establish effective regulations for the maintenance and well-being of parents and senior citizens, as acknowledged and protected by the Indian Constitution. Upon examining the provisions of the Act, the Court highlighted that the explanation and interpretation of Section 4(3) could be gleaned from its heading, which emphasizes the “maintenance of parents and senior citizens.” This implies that the Act aims to provide for the maintenance of parents and senior citizens, as long as they are capable of leading a reasonably normal life with their needs being adequately met. The central objective of the Act is to ensure the maintenance of parents.

The Court took notice of the fact that the petitioner’s sisters were collaborating with the mother to expel the petitioner from the residence with the intention of subsequently selling it.

Additionally, the Court observed that the petitioner, residing in one portion of the house, was not causing any interference in his mother’s life, who occupied another part of the house. Therefore, there were no obstructions in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 Act.

Justice Singh stated, “Furthermore, the eviction process does not follow the same procedure as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, where rights and titles are determined. The provisions of the 2007 Act are specifically aimed at ensuring the welfare of senior citizens. It is imperative to handle these matters with caution so that the family structure remains intact.”

Consequently, the Court invalidated the District Magistrate’s order to the extent that it mandated the petitioner’s eviction.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *