LexSAMTOLA DEVI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235 : 2025 INSC 404 Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2025) 27 March 2025 [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother, a senior citizen from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father. Headnotes† Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – ss.23, 4, 5 – Whether the eviction of the eldest son of the appellant-mother (a senior citizen) from a portion of the house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father, from where he was carrying on the utensil business was necessitated: Held: No – Under the Senior Citizens Act, senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/relatives – The Act does not specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned by or belonging to a senior person – It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha’s case that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens – Thus, the Tribunal has acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction exercising jurisdiction u/s.23 – However, the court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case – Appellate Tribunal did not record any reason necessitating the eviction of the eldest son or that on facts it was expedient to order his eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen – He was paying maintenance as directed by the Family Court – Tribunal was not justified in ordering his eviction merely for the reason that the property belonged to the deceased father, ignoring the fact that his claim of regarding 1/6th share in the house and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds was pending * Author 1236 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports adjudication before the civil court – High Court rightly set aside the eviction order passed by the Appellate Tribunal while maintaining the other conditions as imposed by the Maintenance Tribunal permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulged in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others. [Paras 29, 31-33] Case Law Cited S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. [2020] 12 SCR 1057 : (2021) 15 SCC 730 – relied on. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. [2025] 1 SCR 105 : (2025) 2 SCC 787 – referred to. List of Acts Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. List of Keywords Senior citizens; Protection of the senior citizen; Interest of the senior citizen; Maintenance Tribunal; Eviction order; Eviction proceedings; Eviction of son/relatives of the Senior citizens; Mental and physical torture; Not to encroach upon any part of house; Grant of maintenance; Harassing the parents; Abuses the parents; Self-acquired property; Peaceful living; Owner of property; Humiliate or torture; Cancellation of gifts and sale deeds. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WRITC No. 35884 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Pallav Shisodiya, Sr. Adv., Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Bhoopesh Pandey, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sk Warish Ali, Ms. Saumya Mishra. Advs. for the Respondents: Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv., Aviral Saxena, Abhinav Sharma, K Aditya Singh, Shashank Kumar Srivastava. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1237 Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family. 3. This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation with their children (sons) and the children (sons) are in litigation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.