Nagpur: A senior citizen who receives a regular pension and his deceased wife’s family pension cannot invoke the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to seek eviction of his son from his property, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has held.Justice Nandesh Deshpande rejected a petition filed by a 65-year-old Dattawadi resident, who challenged orders of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal and the District Magistrate here.The petitioner had approached the sub-divisional officer under Section 5 of the Act, following disputes with his son and daughter-in-law. His maintenance application was rejected on Nov 18, 2021. The district magistrate, acting as appellate authority, dismissed his appeal on Aug 17, 2022, prompting the high court challenge.The central issue before the HC was whether the petitioner could invoke the Act when he was financially capable of maintaining himself. The judge noted the legislation was enacted to provide need-based maintenance and mechanisms for protecting the life and property of older persons.Section 4, the court said, entitles a senior citizen to seek maintenance when he or she is ‘unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him’. Section 5 provides the mechanism for making such an application.“Both the authorities have applied their mind and recorded a finding based on available material on record,” Justice Deshpande said, holding the concurrent findings did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.The court noted that the senior citizen was receiving both a regular pension and the family pension of his deceased wife, who had been a govt employee. “It, therefore, follows as a necessary corollary that a person like the petitioner would not fall within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act of 2007,” it held.The case also involved a dispute over a property at plot no. 37, Dattawadi. Petitioner claimed that although the 2011 sale deed had been executed in his son’s name, he had provided the funds for it. He further relied on a gift deed executed by his son in his favour in Jan 2020.The petitioner argued that authorities had incorrectly concluded that the gift deed was not registered. HC agreed that this finding was factually incorrect. However, it held that determining its validity was outside the scope of the proceedings because a civil suit challenging the deed was already pending.The court also recorded that mediation between the parties had failed. On Aug 20, 2026, the son had offered to allow his father to occupy the ground floor while he and his wife shifted to the first floor, but the petitioner rejected the proposal.Relying on the statutory scheme, HC held that eviction under the senior-citizens law is linked to enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection and cannot be granted without satisfying the statutory requirements.
