The traditional Indian family system, deeply rooted in respect for elders and intergenerational living, is increasingly being tested in the modern legal arena. As disputes between elderly parents and their adult children rise, courts have been called upon to strike a balance between cultural expectations and legal entitlements. A pertinent question that has emerged is whether parents are legally obligated to allow their married son and daughter-in-law to reside in their home.
This article delves into the evolving legal position in India on this issue, focusing on a recent decision by the Bombay High Court in Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (2025), which reaffirms the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Legal Framework: Rights of Senior Citizens
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”) is a social welfare legislation aimed at securing not just maintenance but also the protection of the life and property of senior citizens. The Act empowers elderly individuals to seek eviction of children or relatives if they are ill-treated or denied peaceful possession of their property.
Key provisions relevant to this discussion include:
Section 4: Obliges children or heirs to provide maintenance to senior citizens.
Section 5: Enables senior citizens to apply for maintenance.
Section 22: Mandates state governments to provide protection of life and property.
Section 23: Provides that property transferred by a senior citizen subject to a condition of maintenance can be revoked upon breach.
While initially perceived as focused on financial support, judicial interpretation has extended its scope to allow eviction of adult children, even without any transfer of property involved.
Case Background: When Shelter Turns Into a Legal Dispute
In Chandiram Hemnani’s case, the petitioners—an elderly couple aged 67 and 66—sought eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired home in Nandurbar, Maharashtra. The parents alleged emotional harassment and legal intimidation by the daughter-in-law, who had initiated criminal and matrimonial proceedings.
The couple had permitted their son and daughter-in-law to reside in the home out of goodwill after their marriage. Over time, domestic discord escalated into litigation. Despite having an independent house registered in her name, the daughter-in-law continued to occupy the parents’ property.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Tribunal) had originally allowed the eviction plea. However, on appeal, the District Collector acting as the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, terming it a civil dispute. This prompted the parents to approach the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations in the Hemnani Case
1. Parents Cannot Be Compelled to Shelter Children
The High Court emphasised that senior citizens cannot be forced to accommodate their son and daughter-in-law if it affects their mental peace or safety. They are the absolute owners of the property, and their consent is paramount.
2. No Automatic Right to Residence
The daughter-in-law cited pending domestic violence and matrimonial proceedings to claim residence. However, the Court noted:
- No specific residence order under the Domestic Violence Act existed.
- She had purchased her independent property.
- There was no legal maintenance or possession right granted to her.
- Thus, her claim was rejected.
3. Misinterpretation by Appellate Tribunal
The Appellate Tribunal wrongly termed the dispute as “purely civil.” The High Court clarified that under the Senior Citizens Act, eviction orders are valid if they uphold the life and property rights of senior citizens.
4. Reliance on Precedents
The Court cited earlier rulings, including:
- Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji (2018): Senior citizens can seek eviction under the Act.
- Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (2022): Right to live peacefully in self-owned property is protected.
Parents’ Rights: Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025)
In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Senior Citizens Act must be interpreted liberally to protect elderly citizens. It emphasised:
“The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation… It must be construed to advance the remedies available under it, especially in the face of harassment or neglect.”
The judgment supported the view that exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of one’s property cannot be denied due to strained familial relations.
Legal and Social Implications
A. Recognition of Senior Citizens’ Right to Peaceful Living
The ruling reinforces that the constitutional right to life under Article 21 includes the right of senior citizens to live in dignity, peace, and security, even against family members.
B. Shift from Cultural Assumptions to Legal Autonomy
This case signals a shift from inherited assumptions about familial duty to a rights-based framework. It acknowledges that while Indian society values joint families, this tradition cannot be enforced through coercion or legal compulsion.
C. Message to the Appellate Tribunals
The judgment also criticised the mechanical and “hyper-technical” approach of the Appellate Tribunal. It underscored the judicial responsibility of tribunals to interpret statutes in a purposive manner and remain updated with binding precedents.
Rights v. Relationship: What Matters More?
Indian law has evolved from purely moral obligations to enforceable legal rights. While traditionally, joint family structures included intergenerational living, this cannot be imposed when relationships break down. The courts now recognise that:
- Parents’ emotional, mental, and physical well-being is paramount.
- Property rights of senior citizens cannot be overridden by marital conflicts.
- Daughter-in-law’s rights (if any) lie against the husband, not the parents-in-law.
Highlights of the Judgment
Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar observed:
“It is thus evident that the Appellate Tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the Appellate Tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens.”
Further, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India, the learned Judge emphasised:
“Eventually, age catches up with everybody and on occasion, it renders some people completely helpless and dependent on others, either physically or mentally or both. Fortunately, our Constitution is organic and this Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted in path breaking developments in law, particularly in the sphere of social justice, which has been given tremendous importance and significance in a variety of decisions rendered by this Court over the years.
The present petition is one such opportunity presented before this Court to recognise and enforce the rights of elderly persons-rights that are recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution as understood and interpreted by this Court in a series of decisions over a period of several decades, and rights that have gained recognition over the years due to emerging situations.”
Conclusion
So, are parents bound to shelter their son and daughter-in-law? The answer, in law, is a resounding no—not if such accommodation goes against their will or impinges on their right to peaceful enjoyment of their own home.
The Chandiram Hemnani judgment is more than just a legal precedent; it is a reflection of a growing awareness in Indian jurisprudence that elder care cannot be reduced to forced cohabitation. It recognises the painful but real situations where legal recourse becomes necessary to protect the elderly from their own kin.
Key Takeaways
- Parents are not legally obligated to provide shelter to their adult children and their spouses.
- Senior citizens have the right to evict even close relatives from their self-acquired property under the 2007 Act.
- The existence of matrimonial or domestic violence cases does not, by itself, grant a daughter-in-law a legal right to stay in her in-laws’ property.
- Civil litigation is not mandatory where the Senior Citizens Act provides a faster and effective alternative.
- Tribunals must adopt a compassionate and purposive approach while interpreting beneficial legislation.