The Karnataka High Court upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law after finding that the elderly homeowner was forced to live in an outhouse. The Court stressed that senior citizens cannot be denied dignity or access to their own home.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: In a judgment reinforcing the rights and dignity of senior citizens, the Karnataka High Court has upheld an eviction order against a daughter-in-law who had allegedly forced her elderly mother-in-law to live in an outhouse while retaining control over the primary portion of the family residence.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna refused to interfere with the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, observing that the senior citizen had been deprived of dignified access to her own home and the petitioner had no legitimate claim to continue in possession of the premises.
The Court noted that the senior citizen was compelled to live in an outhouse, even though she was the owner and had previously lived in the residence along with the petitioner and her late husband. After the husband’s death, relations deteriorated and the petitioner moved to Andhra Pradesh, but continued to control the house and obstruct access to the senior citizen.
The Court relied on:
- The complaint filed by the senior citizen
- An inspection report
- Evidence showing that the petitioner had not lived in the house for a considerable period
The Court concluded that the attempt to retain possession appeared to stem from personal discord rather than any legal right.
The daughter-in-law argued that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to order eviction because Section 23 of the Act primarily addresses voiding transfers of property made with conditions of maintenance, such as gift deeds. Since no conditional transfer was made in her favour, she contended the eviction was unlawful.
However, the Court pointed out that:
- Section 23(1) deals with conditional transfers (such as gift deeds)
- Section 23(2) enables the enforcement of maintenance rights against persons obstructing them
- The Act must be interpreted in light of its beneficial objective—the protection and welfare of senior citizens
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, which recognised that eviction can be ordered where necessary to secure senior citizens’ safety, welfare, and residential rights.
Court’s Final Decision
The Karnataka High Court held that although the situation did not involve a standard Section 23 property transfer dispute, the Tribunal’s power to order eviction was justified to protect the senior citizen from physical and emotional neglect. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and the eviction order upheld.
“The resistance to eviction does not stem from any legally recognisable claim but from personal discord,”
the Court observed.
Case Title:
Smt. Soumya v Smt. Ratnakumari & Ors.
WRIT PETITION No.104795 OF 2025 (GM – RES)
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Senior Citizens
Click Here to Read More Reports on Hindu Law
