Section 5

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 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).