Maintenance Tribunal may order eviction of children to ensure senior citizen's right to residence and normal life.

Respondent No. 1 (a 71-year-old widow) is the mother of Petitioner No. 1 and mother-in-law of Petitioner No. 2.

She filed a complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal alleging physical assault, emotional harassment, and coercion by the Petitioners to transfer her flat (the subject premises) into their names

The Petitioners resisted, claiming Petitioner No. 1 contributed cash toward the purchase of the flat and that Respondent No. 1 suffered from mental ailments

The Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal ordered the Petitioners to vacate the flat to allow the senior citizen to live a peaceful life

During the pendency of the proceedings, the senior citizen was forced to reside in an old-age home, accumulating significant charges

The Petitioners challenged the eviction order on the ground that an application for eviction is not maintainable under the Act without a simultaneous prayer for monetary maintenance

The Court applied the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, specifically Section 2(b) defining "maintenance" to include food, clothing, residence, and medical treatment

Section 4, which mandates that children must provide for the senior citizen so they may lead a "normal life"

It relied on the "Purposive Construction" doctrine for beneficial legislation, citing K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob

It further integrated precedents including Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Supreme Court), which held eviction can be an incident of maintenance

Bombay High Court decisions in Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that children have no legal right to oust parents from their self-acquired property.

The Court reasoned that the Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial statute intended to provide a "simple, inexpensive and speedy" remedy

It rejected a restrictive interpretation of "maintenance," holding that "residence" under Section 2(b) encompasses the right of a senior citizen to live in their own home free from exploitation

The Court distinguished the Petitioners' reliance on Jitendra Gorakh Megh, noting that in that case, the senior citizen was financially affluent, never lived in the premises, and faced no harassment—facts opposite to the present case where the mother was rendered homeless

The Court emphasized that for a senior citizen dispossessed of their property, a maximum monetary award of ₹10,000 is insufficient to secure a roof in Mumbai; thus, eviction is a necessary tool to enforce the statutory right to a "normal life"

The Petitioners' claim of financial contribution was deemed a "self-serving" assertion that could only be adjudicated in a Civil Court, not as a defense against eviction under this Act

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the orders of the lower Tribunals directing the Petitioners to vacate the premises

The Court granted a limited stay of three weeks on the condition that the Petitioners file an undertaking not to create third-party rights and to part with possession thereafter