Senior Citizen’s Right to Live with Dignity: Orissa HC Upholds Eviction of Son from Father’s House

The Orissa High Court has upheld an order directing a son to vacate a portion of his father’s house, holding that tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are empowered to pass orders ensuring the safety, dignity, and peaceful living of senior citizens.

The Court emphasized that the Act is a beneficial legislation meant to secure social justice for elderly parents and must be interpreted purposively to protect their rights.

Justice Ananda Chandra Behera dismissed writ petitions filed by both the father and son, affirming the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector-cum-Presiding Officer of the Senior Citizens Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

The Tribunal had directed the son to vacate the ground floor of the ancestral house to enable the aged father to reside there peacefully, while also holding that disputes relating to ownership of properties were civil in nature and pending adjudication elsewhere.

The dispute arose between an 86-year-old father and his son regarding occupation of a two-storied ancestral house situated at Baramunda, Bhubaneswar.

The father approached the Tribunal under the 2007 Act alleging that he had been subjected to harassment, humiliation, and forced eviction from his own house by his son.

He further claimed that certain properties purchased in the name of his son had been acquired from his own funds and sought their restoration.

Based on the complaint and a police report regarding alleged mistreatment, the Tribunal passed directions to ensure the father’s protection.

It ordered that the parties maintain peace, that the son refrain from abusive conduct, and most significantly, that the son vacate the ground floor of the house and hand over possession to the father for his safe residence.

Both parties approached the High Court challenging different aspects of the Tribunal’s order.

The son sought quashing of the direction requiring him to vacate the premises, while the father challenged the Tribunal’s refusal to adjudicate on the ownership and restoration of properties transferred in the son’s name.

The Court framed the central issue as whether the Tribunal’s direction requiring the son to vacate part of the premises for the father’s residence, while declining to decide property disputes, was legally sustainable.

The bench examined the scheme and object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and reiterated that it is a welfare legislation intended to ensure dignity, protection, and social justice for elderly persons; Relying on judicial precedents, the Court held that such statutes must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance their object, rather than being restricted by technical or literal interpretations.

It was noted that the factual record indicated that the father, an elderly widower, was desirous of residing in his ancestral home, while the son continued to occupy the premises. It further took into account that the father had been compelled to shift between the residences of his other sons due to the strained relationship.

In this context, the Court held that the Tribunal’s direction requiring the son to vacate the ground floor of the house was consistent with the object of the Act, which seeks to ensure that senior citizens can live with security and dignity; Court observed that enabling the father to reside in his own property, particularly at such an advanced age, was in line with the legislative intent.

On the issue of property ownership, the bench agreed with the Tribunal’s finding that such disputes are civil in nature and subject to pending proceedings before competent forums. It held that the Tribunal under the 2007 Act is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate complex title disputes, especially when such matters are already sub judice.

The Court also took note of Rule 19 of the Orissa Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which mandates that orders under the Act should ensure that senior citizens are able to live with security and dignity. It held that the impugned order satisfied this requirement.

Rejecting the challenges raised by both parties, the Court held that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and had correctly balanced the interests of the parties by granting protection to the father while leaving the property dispute to be adjudicated separately.

The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo v. Babaji Charan Sahoo & Anr. and connected matter

Bench: Justice Ananda Chandra Behera

Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026