Karnataka HC Declines Relief to Daughter-in-law, Says Senior Citizens Cannot Be Denied Access to Their Own Home

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law from a residential property after finding that the senior citizen in the case had been pushed out of her own home and made to live in an outhouse.

Justice M Nagaprasanna declined to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, observing that the material before the Tribunal showed circumstances in which the senior citizen was deprived of dignified access to her residence and the petitioner offered no convincing basis to retain possession of the premises.

Relying on the contents of the complaint, the inspection report and the surrounding circumstances, the Court noted that the mother-in-law had been made to reside in an outhouse while the main portion of the house remained in control of the petitioner, who did not actually reside in the property after shifting to Andhra Pradesh subsequent to her husband’s death.

The Court echoed the operative reasoning of the Tribunal, noting that the senior citizen was effectively excluded from her own house and the petitioner’s resistance to eviction did not appear to stem from any legally recognisable claim but from personal discord.

The judgment then turned to the legal objections raised by the petitioner concerning the scope of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. It was argued that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to order eviction in a proceeding initiated under Section 23, as the provision is primarily concerned with voiding transfers of property made by senior citizens subject to conditions of maintenance.

The petitioner contended that since no gift deed or conditional transfer was executed in her favour, an eviction direction fell outside the statutory framework.

In examining this, the Court traced the statutory structure of Section 23 and relied on the principles stated by the Supreme Court in S Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. It highlighted that Section 23(1) deals with transfers by senior citizens that are vitiated when conditions of maintenance are breached, whereas Section 23(2) permits enforcement of maintenance rights against gratuitous transferees or those with notice of such rights. The Court acknowledged that the jurisdiction to declare transfers void under Section 23(1) has a defined scope. However, it emphasised that the Act as a whole is designed to secure the welfare and protection of senior citizens and that several judicial precedents have accepted that eviction may be ordered where it is necessary to ensure the senior citizen’s safety, dignity and access to residence.

The Court noted that the present case did not involve the classic situation of a gift deed under Section 23(1). Even then, the grievance was not merely about legal title but about physical exclusion of the senior citizen from her own premises.

The Court thus observed that the power exercised by the Tribunal was rooted in the objective of the Act and that the petitioner’s technical argument on the limits of Section 23 could not prevail in the face of clear factual injustice.

The factual background of the dispute showed that the petitioner, her late husband and the senior citizen earlier resided in the same house. Following the death of the petitioner’s husband, the relationship deteriorated and the petitioner eventually shifted to Andhra Pradesh. According to the complaint, the senior citizen and her husband were relegated to the outhouse while the petitioner retained control over the main dwelling.

The inspection report and subsequent proceedings reflected that the petitioner and her children were no longer residing in the property, yet they continued to obstruct the senior citizen’s access. On this basis, the senior citizen approached the jurisdictional authority seeking restoration of possession and cancellation of a gift deed concerning another branch of the family.

During the proceedings, documents were produced to show that the petitioner did not live in the house and the Tribunal ultimately found the complaint credible.

The petitioner’s pleadings primarily contested the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order eviction. It was argued that the Act did not envisage dispossession of a daughter-in-law in the absence of a transfer under Section 23 and that the Tribunal had travelled beyond the statutory remit.

The respondents countered this by submitting that the petitioner had no vested right in the premises, was no longer residing there, and had effectively excluded the senior citizen, making eviction necessary to restore normalcy.

The State supported the Tribunal’s reasoning, pointing out that the Act confers broad powers to secure the welfare of senior citizens facing neglect.

Having considered the rival submissions, the Court found no basis to interfere with the eviction order.

Case Title: Soumya v Ratnakumari & Ors.

Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna

Date of Judgment: 25.11.2025