Children cannot claim any legal right over the property of a Parent during their lifetime.

In the matter of Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs The State of Maharshtra & Ors in WP(C) 7392 OF 2021 decided on 30.01.2024 by the Division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

FACTS: The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 assailing the order of the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal (herein after Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal allowed the complaint of the mother and ordered the Petitioner (hereinafter Son) to vacate and handover the suit property to the Mother.

It is the contention of the son that he is ill and unemployment and must be permitted to live in the property and the order of the Tribunal should be set aside. It was further contended that the Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (herein after The Act) does not provide a provision for appeal by any child aggrieved as like the son (Petitioner).

ISSUE: Whether children can seek right over property of parent under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 during their lifetime?

OBSERVATIONS: The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay after analysing the scheme of The Act, 2007 held that the legislative intent for the Act was to provide a complete mechanism to facilitate the senior citizens to attain their rights and welfare. The Court relied upon the judgement of a single judge bench in Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors. Vs Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors WP(C) 2400/2021 in holding that the Courts cannot be narrow and pedantic in applying section 4 of the Act. The word “normal life” u/s 4 of the Act has deeper and wider meaning including protection from harassment from children.

The Court relied upon Shweta Shweta Shetty v State of Maharashtra & Ors. [WP (L) No. 9374 of 2020] in holding that to invoke eviction, it is perquisite to show that an enforceable legal right in the property exists. The statutory intent is to protect a senior citizen and not harass them by making claim over property where a right of the claimant does not even exist. The Hon’ble Court held that no exclusive right or possession can be claimed over the property of a parent by the children during the lifetime of a parent. The Court further rejected the argument of the son in respect of Section 16 of the Act and categorically held that just because a remedy of appeal is not provided to the son does not make section 16 arbitrary. The Court further held that a provision made by the legislature cannot be struck down in the absence of a substantive legal ground.

(DJ 03 2024)