Mother Need Not Live With Ill-Treating Son: Rajasthan HC

Senior Citizen Mother May Refuse to Live With Ill-Treating Son; Eviction Upheld: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

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).

Key holdings

A son’s duty under Sections 2(b) and 2(k) of the 2007 Act covers his parent’s residence and welfare (paras 12, 15).

Ousting an owner-mother from her house and ill-treating her violates her right to live with dignity under Article 21 (para 15).

Where parents are ill-treated, it is their choice whether a son lives with them (para 15).

A son’s pending suit for a share in the house does not bar the eviction order (para 15).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The respondent, a widow aged about 72, bought the house in 2004 in her own name (paras 2, 10). Her son left it in 2006 after his marriage and returned with his wife in 2010 (paras 3, 10). She alleged ill-treatment, had lived with her married daughter since March 2018, and said she was refused entry on 12.11.2018 (paras 4-5). On her complaint under the 2007 Act, the Tribunal (S.D.O.) on 08.03.2019 directed the petitioners to vacate within one month; this Court stayed that order ex parte on 03.04.2019 (para 5). The son denied the allegations, claimed to have invested about Rs. 8 lakh and sued for an 85% share (paras 3, 10). Two attempts at mediation failed (para 8).

Court's Findings

The Court traced the 2007 Act to the neglect of the elderly as joint families wither; Section 3 gives it overriding effect (paras 11, 13). Citing S. Vanitha, it said the Act and the Domestic Violence Act must be read harmoniously (para 14). Under Sections 2(b) and 2(k) the son had to maintain his mother, including residence, and look after her welfare; though financially independent, she was abused and kept out of her house despite the Tribunal's order (para 15). The owner-mother was ousted and subjected to mental, social and physical abuse, which violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21; as owner, and under her husband's will, she had the first right to live in the house (para 15). Following Rakesh Soni and Sandeep Gulati, where parents are ill-treated it is their choice whether a son lives with them (para 15). The disputed Rs. 8 lakh investment was found minimal and the renovation for the petitioners' own use; the share suit stood on a different footing (para 15). With a business turnover of about Rs. 25 lakh, the petitioners could live elsewhere (para 15). The natural-justice objection failed: they were heard (para 15).

Legal Principle

Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a son's duty to maintain a parent includes residence. Where a senior citizen who owns the house is ill-treated and kept out of it, an order directing the son to vacate is justified; his civil claim to a share does not stand in the way (paras 15-16).

Precedents Relied Upon

Rakesh Soni & Ors. v. Premlata Soni & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 920/2019 (Rajasthan High Court), AIR 2020 Raj. 27
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6, 15
Relied on by the respondent and by the Court: an order directing a son and daughter-in-law to vacate is valid when they ill-treat the parents, and it is the parents’ choice whether the son lives with them.
Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner, Office of the Secretary-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) 2761/2020 and connected matters (Delhi High Court)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7, 15
Relied on by the respondent and by the Court: eviction of a son and daughter-in-law who harassed and ill-treated senior-citizen parents instead of maintaining them was justified.
S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 1023
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the 2007 Act, both special Acts with non obstante clauses, are to be read harmoniously in a domestic conflict between in-laws and a daughter-in-law.

View all precedents (4)

State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15
Cited by the petitioners against the grant of final relief as an interim measure; the Court held the contention could not be a ground to oust the mother from her own house, since notices were issued and the petitioners were heard.

Statutory Provisions