Introduction
In Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, 18 June 2025), the court emphatically held that elderly parents may not be compelled to allow a married son and daughter-in-law to reside in the parents’ home against their wishes. The petitioners – a retired couple in their late 60s – owned a self-acquired bungalow. They had initially permitted their son and his wife to stay after the couple’s marriage. Still, relations later became “hostile” when the daughter-in-law filed matrimonial (divorce), domestic violence and Section 498A complaints against the husband and in-laws. When the senior couple sought relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the MWP Act) to evict them, a Senior Citizens Tribunal granted it. Hee’s daughter-in-law appealed, claiming her matrimonial proceedings entitled her to remain. The appellate tribunal reversed the eviction order (calling the dispute “civil” and directing a separate civil suit). The High Court set aside that ruling and restored the eviction order, reaffirming that “in any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire.”
Background
The Hemnanis (ages 67 and 66) lived in a house in Aurangabad, purchased by the husband in 2008. After their son, Mukesh (now 37), and daughter-in-law, Ritu (36), married, the parents allowed them to occupy a portion of the home. However, soon the daughter-in-law began filing a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as well as 498A/323/504/506 IPC, against her husband and parents-in-law. Feeling harassed and unable to live peacefully, the elderly couple petitioned the Senior Citizens Tribunal (under Sections 5 and 20 of the MWP Act) on 18 February 2019. The Tribunal directed Mukesh and Ritu to vacate within 30 days. The daughter-in-law appealed the order to the Appellate Tribunal, asserting that as a party to pending matrimonial proceedings, she had a statutory right to reside in the shared” household.” On 7 August 2020, the Appellate Tribunal allowed her appeal, characterising the issue as a civil dispute and ordering the parents to pursue eviction in a civil suit. he high court petition followed. During litigation, it emerged that Ritu had purchased another house in August 2021. However, she continued living in her in-laws’ home.)
Legal Analysis
The Bombay High Court took a strict view of the statutory scheme, reinforcing the protective purpose of the MWP Act. Noting the Act is a beneficial legislation designed “to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens”, the court found no legal basis for the daughter-in-law’s claim. Crucially, the parents self-acquired the house in question. Neither the son nor his wife had any court decree or title giving them the right to occupy it. The fact that the parents once permitted them to stay did not create a lasting right of residence. As the court explained: “”erely allowing the son and daughter-in-law to reside in the house cannot confer any legal right in their favour, particularly when relations have turned hostile, and they cannot compel [the] parents to allow them residence against their desire.”. In short, “there is no legal basis for the claim of [the daughter-in-law] to reside in the petitioners’ house”
The court observed that the daughter-in-law’s matrimonial or maintenance rights must be enforced separately and cannot override the parents’ rights. “The competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be compromised at the cost of senior citizens’ rights to enjoy their property independently.” Any relief to her must come through her husband’s obligations or family court orders, not by remaining in her in-laws’ home. This echoes the court’s remark that her “matrimonial rights… can be enforced independently without defeating the parents-in-law’s protected rights.” The High Court held that a senior citizen’s autonomy over self-acquired property is paramount once the occupier loses the family’s trust.
The High Court also rebuked the Appellate Tribunal for treating eviction as a mere civil right. It emphasised that the MWP Act empowers special tribunals to provide prompt relief to seniors, in contrast to protracted civil litigation. The tribunal’s suggestion to approach the civil courts was “detrimental” and “defeated the purpose” of the Act. By statute, a senior (or an authorised agent) may apply for maintenance under Section 5, and the Tribunal must dispose of cases within 90 days. Under Section 5(2), interim maintenance allowances can be granted. The Act “p”ovides speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for older people, and refusing to use those remedies would defeat the purpose of the Act. The High Court thus restored the Tribunal’s eviction order. Mukesh and Ritu were directed to vacate within 30 days and were ordered to pay costs (the son had already been paying ₹20,000/month for continued occupation, per the Tribunal’s earlier order)
The court’s reasoning aligns with Supreme Court precedent. In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (SC, 2025), the apex court reiterated that tribunals under the Act have implicit power to order eviction when necessary to protect senior citizens. He Court stressed that Section 23 relief (cancellation of a gift deed for failure to maintain) is “”ntrinsically linked” with the Act’s objectives – to ensure elders are cared for – and that denying eviction powers would “defeat the purpose of the Act” Similarly, earlier in S. Vanitha v. DC Bengaluru (SC 2019), the Court recognized that a tribunal could evict a child or relative who breaches the obligation to maintain the senior. In line with these, the Bombay HC upheld the seniors ‘right to reclaim exclusive possession of their property under the Act.
At the same time, the court implicitly acknowledged the limits on eviction. Recent Supreme Court rulings have held that a daughter-in-law entitled to reside under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be forcibly evicted under the Senior Citizens Act. In State of Karnataka v. Fatima Parveen (SC, Dec. 2020), a Chandrachud-led bench held that Section 3 of the MWP Act cannot be used to override a wwoman’sright to a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act The Court enjoined that allowing the Senior Citizens Act to defeat the DV Act’s protections would “defeat the object and purpose” of the latter. Notably, the Bombay High Court distinguished that case on its facts: here the daughter-in-law had no maintenance order, had acquired another home of her own, and was not prevented from seeking remedies (e.g. permanent alimony or residence orders) through her matrimonial proceedings Thus, the conflict between the two statutes did not operate to give her continuing residence in the parents’ self-acquired house.
In sum, the Bombay Bench struck a balance: it affirmed that eviction need not be ordered in every case (echoing the Supreme Court’s discretion in Krishna Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Mar. 2025). Still, it found that seniors’ autonomy must prevail when a senior citizen’s right to property is directly at stake, especially where the occupiers have alternative housing. The Act speaks of “speedy” remedies and envisages eviction powers (explicitly or implicitly) to ensure elders are not forced to endure neglect or intimidation. Senior judges have repeatedly cautioned that tribunals must consider all “competing claims”; here, the competing claims favoured the elderly owners, and the court granted them complete protection.
Implications: This decision reinforces that a senior’s self‑acquired property remains untouchable by in-laws or children once the senior revokes permission. It clarifies that a married daughter‑in‑law has no independent right in her parents-in-law’s house absent a specific legal entitlement. All maintenance obligations lie with the husband (and, under the Act, with relatives as duty‑bearers), but those obligations do not translate into a right to live in the in-laws’ home against the owners’ will. The judgment will likely encourage more senior citizens to invoke the MWP eviction remedy rather than delay through ordinary civil suits. It also signals tribunals that they should not shirk their mandate by forcing seniors into more protracted court battles. At the same time, family and DV courts must respect that a senior couple’s property rights may legitimately limit a daughter‑in‑law’s residence claim.
Ultimately, the case underscores the protective ethos of the Senior Citizens Act: children and their spouses must support their elders, but the elders retain ownership and control over their residence. As the High Court observed, allowing a hostile son or daughter‑in‑law to commandeer the grandparents ‘ home “against their desire” would subvert the Act’s purpose. The ruling thus affirms that Indian law increasingly values the independence and dignity of senior citizens, even as it preserves appropriate remedies for younger family members through other channels.
Conclusion
The Hemnani decision provides a clear precedent that in-laws have no automatic right of occupancy in a senior’s self-owned house. It reinforces statutory obligations (Sections 4–5 of the MWP Act) requiring children to maintain their parents, not to usurp their home. By sanctioning eviction in this case, the Bombay High Court has realigned the dispute with the AAct’s spirit, ensuring older people are not compelled to harbour those who no longer care for them. Courts and tribunals across India will cite this outcome as an authoritative answer: senior citizens enjoy broad home protection, even when a son or daughter-in-law asserts claims of maintenance or domestic rights.
About the Author
Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.