OCI Cardholder Parent Entitled To Remedies Under Senior Citizens Act; Citizenship Not Mandatory: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder is entitled to invoke the remedies available under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the other statutory conditions are satisfied. The Court observed that the beneficial object of the Act would be better served by adopting an interpretation that advances the protection and welfare of parents and senior citizens, and accordingly disagreed with the contrary view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Dephny Gladys Lobo v. Assistant Commissioner of President, Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal (WP No.6720 of 2016).
Justice N.J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act directing the petitioner, the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2, to vacate a flat owned by the latter. The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate order on the grounds that respondent No.2, a New Zealand citizen and OCI cardholder residing in Australia, was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and that the eviction order interfered with her rights in the matrimonial home. It was contended that respondent No.2 did not satisfy the definition of "senior citizen" under Section 2(h) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Court examined the scheme and object of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and observed that the definition of "parent" under Clause 2(d) does not require Indian citizenship, unlike the definition of "senior citizen" under Clause 2(h). It observed:
“To get the benefit of the ameliorative provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a person who is a “parent” need not to be a “senior citizen”. Meaning thereby, she need not have attained the age of 60 years, nor is it obligatory that she should be citizen of India. A parent is entitled to the protection under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, de hors her age, and citizenship status.”
The Court emphasized that the 2007 Act is a beneficial legislation, and the Court must lean in favour of an interpretation which favours the beneficiaries rather than one which stultifies the object of the beneficial legislation.
The Court found that the Karnataka High Court in Dephny Gladys Lobo had not considered either the object of the Senior Citizens Act or the implications of the Citizenship Act and the 2021 Notification, and therefore held that the judgment did not command persuasive precedential value.
“… the object of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would be better subserved by adopting an approach which leans in favour of the protection and welfare of the parents and senior citizens. Thus, I am impelled to hold that an OCI cardholder is entitled to invoke the remedies under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if other conditions are satisfied,” the Court remarked.
On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that an application for eviction simpliciter, sans the prayer for maintenance, is maintainable when the senior citizen has been deprived of her property unlawfully, or she requires the property to live a normal, dignified and peaceful life.
While considering the petitioner's claim to continue in the flat as a shared household, the Court concluded that the respondent's right to reside peacefully in her own property deserved protection without directing eviction of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Appellate Tribunal's eviction order, and restored the order of the Maintenance Tribunal.
Case Title: Mughda Sahal v. Senior Citizen Appellate Tribunal [Writ Petition No. 1532 of 2026]