Much More In Life Than Material Things: Bombay High Court Laments Mother's Ouster From Home, Orders Son To Vacate Premises

The Bombay High Court today ordered a man and his wife to vacate his elderly mother's house observing that it was unfortunate that the mother, in her twilight years, was ousted from her house by her son rather than receiving love and care.

“The feeling of being disowned by one of her sons itself has caused her a trauma. None of the parents should suffer this way. In one's life, there is much more than material things. Proud would be the parents of such children who would have their own achievements on all fronts and not look at the wealth and money of their old parents”, the court observed.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla lamented such legal battles, stating that they show that the world is not idealistic as greed is a bottomless pit.

“It also appears that the petitioner had entered the premises visiting the mother and later on refused to remove himself from the premises and obtained occupation of the premises by creating circumstances to achieve her removal from her own house. She could not have suffered a “living hell” in her own house…It appears that the petitioner also refused to maintain the mother and provide her basic medical needs apart from food and clothing requirements”, the court further observed.

With these observations, the court dismissed the son's writ petition challenging an order of the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal directing him to vacate the house.

Laxmi Bhanudas Chandanshive filed a complaint against her son Dinesh and his wife before the Tribunal after being ousted from her residence, a tenement in Mulund, Mumbai. She claimed that her son, who was living with his family in the same tenement, had forcibly removed her, leaving her no choice but to seek shelter with her elder son in a small tenement.

She stated that the tenement was allotted to her deceased husband, and after his demise, she peacefully resided there until her son and his wife forcibly removed her. She alleged that her son aimed to oust her to exclusively occupy the tenement for financial gain. She claimed that despite having an independent house, he sought to grab her only asset by fabricating documents and had intention to sell the property.

The Tribunal on September 17, 2021, directed the son and his wife to vacate the tenement within 30 days.

The son filed the present writ petition contending that he, as the legal representative of his deceased father, had the right to the property and that the Senior Citizens Act was arbitrary as it did not provide for an appeal by non-senior citizen family members.

The court underscored that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted by the legislature to recognize and protect the rights of senior citizens. The Act aims to provide a legal framework for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, acknowledging the societal shift away from joint family systems, which has left many older individuals vulnerable to neglect and lack of support, the court noted.

The court emphasized that during the parents' lifetime, children cannot claim exclusive ownership or possession of their parents' property. In case other siblings are claiming rights in the premises the proper legal recourse for the petitioner would be filing a suit, and this cannot be during the lifetime of the mother, the court held.

The court emphasized the mother's right to be maintained from her own tenement, and the son did not make out any substantive ground which would show he has any legal right on the concerned tenement.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that Section 16 of the Senior Citizen's Act is arbitrary as it doesn't provide for appeal by anyone other than the senior citizens against order of the Tribunal. The court said that the provision does not become bad merely because the petitioner feels so. The right to appeal must be conferred by law and the legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to limit the right of appeal to senior citizens, the court observed.

The court directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days and prohibited him from creating third-party rights in the tenement until vacant possession is handed over to the mother.

Advocate Harshal N Mirashi represented the petitioner.

AGP PJ Gavhane represented the State.

Advocate Ajit M Savagave represented the mother.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 7392 of 2021

Case Title – Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order