Senior Citizen Receiving Regular Pension and Family Pension Cannot Claim Maintenance or Eviction Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Rules Nagpur Bench
In a significant judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Bhimrao S/o Indeshwar Meshram challenging orders that rejected his application for maintenance and eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter "the Act").
The petitioner, a senior citizen, had sought eviction of his son, Ashish S/o Bhimrao Meshram, and daughter-in-law from a property situated at Dattawadi, Nagpur, asserting his right to live on the premises. The petitioner contended that although the property was registered in the name of his son, he had funded the purchase and was gifted the property through a registered deed. However, the son disputed these claims, asserting ownership and maintaining that the petitioner was receiving a regular pension and family pension from his deceased wife's government service.
The trial authority, the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal, and the appellate authority, the District Magistrate of Nagpur, both rejected the petitioner's application. They held that since the petitioner was receiving a regular pension and family pension, he was not "unable to maintain himself" as mandated under Section 4 of the Act. The Court reiterated the legal position that only senior citizens who cannot maintain themselves from their own earnings or property are entitled to claim maintenance or seek eviction under the Act.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had erred by incorrectly finding that the gift deed was unregistered and that the eviction could be ordered under the Apex Court's recent ruling in Rajeshwar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar (2025). The Court clarified that although there was a factual error regarding the registration status of the gift deed, the validity of the gift deed was a matter for civil courts and not within the scope of the Maintenance Tribunal. More importantly, the petitioner's entitlement to claim relief under the Act was negated by his receipt of pensions, and hence the eviction claim could not be sustained.
The judgment underscored that eviction under the Act is an "incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection" and should only be ordered after considering the competing claims of parties. The Court also noted that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable senior citizens, but it cannot be misused for summary eviction without meeting the statutory requirements.
The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below, observing that the findings were neither perverse nor without basis in the material on record. The petition was thus dismissed, and the orders rejecting maintenance and eviction claims were upheld.
This ruling clarifies the ambit of Section 4 and 5 of the Act, emphasizing that senior citizens who are financially self-sufficient through pensions or property cannot invoke the Act to claim maintenance or evict family members from property, reinforcing a balanced approach to family disputes involving senior citizens.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Senior citizen receiving regular pension and family pension not entitled to claim maintenance or eviction under the Act. Eviction can only be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection, which should be granted after considering the competing claims of both parties.
Statutory provision(s):
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4, 5, 16
Bhimrao v. Ashish, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972568
