The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the primary objective of the Senior Citizens Act is to safeguard the rights and welfare of senior citizens, rather than being employed as a means to resolve property disputes.

Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that the Senior Citizens Act of 2007 was established to establish a framework for ensuring the maintenance and well-being of senior citizens who lack support, whether financial or otherwise. He emphasized that as a social legislation, the Act should be interpreted liberally, with its provisions applied in alignment with the overarching goals of safeguarding senior citizens. In the specific case at hand, the primary aim is to prevent further deprivation of property by senior citizens without adequate support and to mitigate any threats to their livelihood.

The court noted that it is both a moral and legal duty for every son to provide maintenance for his mother. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizens Act imposes a responsibility on children to ensure the upkeep of senior citizens, enabling them to lead a dignified and normal life.

The court noted that it is both a moral and legal duty for every son to provide maintenance for his mother. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizens Act imposes a responsibility on children to ensure the upkeep of senior citizens, enabling them to lead a dignified and normal life.

The woman's argument was centered around her living situation, stating that despite occupying the ground floor of the house, she was unable to reside there due to the mistreatment inflicted upon her by her son and daughter-in-law. Consequently, she initiated legal action by filing a complaint seeking the eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from the premises.

The District Magistrate determined that the ownership status of the property was ambiguous. The woman asserted ownership of the house based on a Power of Attorney and other documents, but failed to substantiate her claim to the title. Consequently, the Appellate Authority agreed with the District Magistrate's decision and rejected her appeal.

Granting the plea, the court set-aside the Appellate Authority's decision and approved the application submitted by the woman under Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

“The refusal of the Respondent even to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner for use and occupation of the property and the preparedness of the Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, to face contempt and even necessary go to jail, speaks volumes of the conduct of Respondent No. 2…,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Aakansha Kaul, Mr. Aman Sahani, Ms. Versha Singh and Mr. Satya Sabharwal, Ms. Rhea Borkotoky, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Udit Malik, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocate. Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate for R-2 and 3

Title: MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.