Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Used For Settling Property Disputes: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted for the protection of the senior citizens and cannot be used for settling property disputes.

“The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted with the objective to provide a mechanism to secure maintenance and ensure welfare of senior citizens left bereft of support, financial or otherwise. The Act being a social legislation, ought to be construed liberally and its provisions should be implemented in light of the aims and objectives with which the Act was enacted, which for all intents and purposes in the immediate case herein is to ensure that a senior citizen without any semblance of support is not further deprived of the property and so that there is no threat to their life,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

The court observed that is the moral and legal obligation of every son to maintain his mother and that Section 4(2) of the enactment casts an obligation on the children to maintain senior citizens so that they may lead a normal life.

Justice Prasad made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by an old lady challenging the order passed by Appellate Authority upholding the rejection of her application filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

It was the woman's case that though she was living in the ground floor of the house, she was unable to reside there because of the ill treatment meted out to her by her son and his wife. She had filed a complaint for eviction of her son and daughter in law from the premises.

The District Magistrate had held that ownership of the property was not clear and the woman was claiming ownership of the house on the basis of Power of Attorney any other documents whereby her title could not be established. The Appellate Authority concurred with the said order and dismissed her appeal.

Allowing the plea, the court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and allowed the application moved by the woman under Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

“The refusal of the Respondent even to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner for use and occupation of the property and the preparedness of the Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, to face contempt and even necessary go to jail, speaks volumes of the conduct of Respondent No. 2…,” the court said.

Justice Prasad further said that the son was under an obligation to maintain his mother, who was without any source of income and directed him to pay Rs.10,000 to her every month towards maintenance.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Aakansha Kaul, Mr. Aman Sahani, Ms. Versha Singh and Mr. Satya Sabharwal, Ms. Rhea Borkotoky, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Udit Malik, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocate. Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate for R-2 and 3

Title: MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195

Click Here To Read Order