Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has given a big verdict while hearing a case. The court, while hearing a case, said that if the responsibility of maintaining the parents’ maintenance, their child can be evicted from their property. The court has also said that the tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare Act, 2007 of parents and senior citizens has the right to pass the order to evict their child from the property of the parents if the children do not care.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has given this decision, accepting the appeal filed on behalf of an 80 -year -old elder and 78 -year -old wife. The elderly couple, quashed the Bombay High Court’s order, has given the verdict, in which the order to be evicted by the tribunal against their elder son was declared invalid. The Supreme Court has emphasized that their child can be evicted from their property if the parents are not followed by the responsibility of maintaining the maintenance.
Care and security and plight are the purpose
The Supreme Court has also said that the purpose of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens was to ensure the care and security of senior citizens and to remove their plight. Therefore, its provisions should be explained in such a way that it promotes its welfare objective. The bench has stated that the outline of the law clearly reflects that this law was made for removing the plight of older persons, taking care and safety. Asked the bench that being a welfare law, its provisions should be generously interpreted so that its beneficial objective can be carried forward.
Couple’s elder son captured
After considering all the facts, the Supreme Court found that the eldest son of the appellant couple, who is financially strong and runs a business. He captured two properties in Mumbai owned by the elderly couple. After this, after the elderly parents went to UP, refused to allow them to stay again.
Order to evict son
The Supreme Court admitted that the son has violated his statutory obligations by preventing his parents from reaching their property and thus failed the original objective of the law. The bench said that keeping these facts in mind, the appellant’s son is ordered to be evicted from his property.
