Today, On 27th March, The Supreme Court observed that while India upholds the philosophy of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family), maintaining unity even among close relatives remains a challenge. The court noted that family disputes and conflicts often lead to legal battles, straining relationships. This contradiction highlights the gap between cultural ideals and real-life struggles. The remarks emphasize the need for harmony and resolution within families.
New Delhi: Expressing concerns about the “erosion” of the family institution, the Supreme Court remarked on Thursday that while people in India embrace the maxim “vasudhaiva kutumbakam,” they struggle to maintain unity even within their immediate families.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti stated that the very concept of family is deteriorating, leading to a one-person-one-family dynamic.
Also Read: Abhishek M. Singhvi: Lawyers’ Influence on Global Regulations Discussed at G20 Conclave
The bench noted,
“In India, we believe in vasudhaiva kutumbakam, i.e., the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family; what to say of building one family for the world? The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded, and we are on the brink of one person, one family.”
This observation arose during a plea from a woman seeking to evict her eldest son from her home. It was revealed that Kallu Mal, who eventually passed away, and his wife Samtola Devi had five children, including three sons and two daughters.
The couple did not have cordial relations with their sons, and in August 2014, Kallu Mal lodged a complaint with the local SDM, alleging mental and physical abuse by his eldest son.
In 2017, the parents initiated proceedings for maintenance against their sons, which were registered as a criminal case in a family court in Sultanpur. The family court subsequently awarded Rs 4,000 a month to each parent, with the amount to be paid equally by the two sons by the seventh day of each calendar month.
In 2018, Kallu Mal’s eldest son married a woman from a different caste, contrary to his parents’ wishes. In response, Kallu Mal initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the Maintenance Tribunal in Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur.
Kallu Mal asserted that the house was his self-acquired property, which included shops on the lower level. He had been operating a business in one of the shops from 1971 until 2010. After falling ill, he claimed that his eldest son took over the business and pressured him to sell the house.
Kallu Mal alleged that his son neglected his daily and medical needs, prompting him to request the tribunal to evict his son from the property.
The tribunal ruled that the son could not encroach on any part of the house without permission from his parents, except for the shop where he conducted business, and warned of eviction proceedings if he continued to mistreat them.
Feeling aggrieved, the parents appealed to the appellate tribunal, which overturned the SDM’s order and mandated the son’s eviction. The eldest son then approached the Allahabad High Court, which annulled the eviction order but upheld the tribunal’s other directives.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Kallu Mal could not be deemed the exclusive owner of the property, as the son had rights or shares in it.
The court noted,
“It is apparent that Kallu Mal had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and two plots, one to his son-in-law and another to a stranger, Amrita Singh. He had also gifted one shop to his younger daughter.”
The ruling continued,
“Therefore, ex facie he ceases to be the owner of the property, and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants.”
The court found no evidence that the son had humiliated his parents or interfered with their living conditions after the tribunal’s order.
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no need for the drastic measure of evicting the son from the house; instead, the situation could have been addressed by ensuring maintenance under the senior citizens law.