In a stern rebuke to a misuse of legal safeguards, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not a tool for senior citizens to evict one another in property disputes.
The courtroom drama unfolded between two elderly sisters, both over the age of 60, who found themselves locked in a bitter conflict over a humble slum structure. The younger sister, who lived on the ground floor, had approached a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act seeking to oust her elder sibling from the first floor. The tribunal complied—until the High Court stepped in.
Justice Sandeep V Marne, presiding over the matter, made it clear that the Act is meant for protection, not possession. “This is, in essence, a suit for recovery of possession,” he remarked, adding, “Jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover premises from another.”
The elder sister, Vimal Dagadu Kate, along with her family, had challenged the tribunal’s October 2023 decision which ordered them to vacate the first floor. Their argument was simple: this wasn’t about welfare or maintenance—it was a plain property squabble, best left to the civil courts.
The High Court agreed.
What tipped the scales was the fact that both parties were senior citizens. Justice Marne observed that Kate had no legal obligation to maintain her sister, removing any potential claim under the Act. “This case is a textbook example of jurisdictional overreach,” he noted, calling it a “gross abuse” of the tribunal’s powers.
Setting aside the eviction order, the Court restored possession to the petitioners. However, it also extended an olive branch to the sister, noting that she was free to pursue civil remedies if she still believed she had a claim.
Importantly, the Court ensured that the time lost in the tribunal would not be held against her when calculating the legal limitation period for filing a proper suit. Meanwhile, the petitioners were directed to clear pending utility dues and were cautioned against any form of harassment toward the respondent.
The takeaway? The Act may shield the elderly, but it’s not a weapon to settle property feuds—especially not between siblings.