Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Also known as Senior Citizens Act.
About the Senior Citizens Act
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is beneficial legislation, and a construction that advances its remedies must be adopted (Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 INSC 20, para 14). Under Section 23(1), a transfer made subject to the transferee's care can be declared void when that care is not provided, and possession restored to the senior citizen (paras 21, 23-25). Tribunals under the Act also have an implicit, discretionary power to evict a child where that is necessary for the senior citizen's protection (Ramesh Kumar Soni v. Sampat Raj Soni, 2026:RJ-JD:21183-DB, paras 9-10).
Sections
Key Judgments
The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere under Article 227 with orders requiring a son, his wife and their son to vacate the house of his senior citizen mother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (paras 1, 3, 9). Holding that authorities may direct the eviction of erring children or relatives to secure a senior citizen's right to live with dignity, it dismissed the petition with Rs 25,000 costs payable to the mother (paras 8, 12).
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur upheld the rejection of a father's application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that sought his son's eviction from a family property, holding that only a senior citizen unable to maintain himself may apply under Section 5, and a petitioner drawing a regular pension and his late wife's family pension is not one (paras 7, 11, 13-14). Eviction is only an incident of the right to maintenance (para 17).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a son's intra-court appeal against his eviction from his father's house. It held that a Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has an implicit, discretionary power to order eviction where needed to protect a senior citizen (paras 9-10). The father's ownership, the harassment and the criminal case between them justified the order (paras 8, 11-13).
The Supreme Court restored a tribunal order cancelling a mother's gift deed in favour of her son under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, because he failed to look after her as promised. As beneficial legislation, the Act must be read liberally, and tribunals under it can order possession to be restored to the senior citizen (paras 14, 23-26).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Maintenance Tribunal order that had declared void a son’s 2010 registered gift deed from his mother under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Following Sudesh Chhikara, it held that Section 23 applies only if the transfer carries an explicit condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so. This deed carried no such condition (paras 19, 21-24, 27).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Senior Citizens Tribunal order directing a son and his wife to vacate the house owned by his widowed mother (paras 1, 15-17). It held that the son's duty under the 2007 Act covers residence and welfare, that ousting and ill-treating the owner-mother violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21, and that where parents are ill-treated it is their choice whether the son lives with them (para 15). The writ petition was dismissed (para 18).