Can Senior Citizens Evict Children from Their Property? A Legal Perspective Under the MWPSC Act, 2007

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that while the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (MWPSC) Act, 2007 empowers elderly citizens to seek maintenance from their children, it does not automatically grant them the right to evict their children or relatives from their homes in every case. The decision came in the backdrop of a plea filed by an elderly couple seeking the eviction of their son from their house, citing neglect and mental harassment. The court dismissed the plea, emphasizing that eviction is not a mandatory outcome under the Act unless specific conditions are met.

The MWPSC Act, 2007, was enacted with the primary objective of providing a legal framework for elderly citizens (60 years and above) to claim maintenance from their children or legal heirs, especially when they are unable to support themselves through their own income or property. This central welfare legislation is administered by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and provides statutory protection for aged parents to live a life of dignity. The Act mandates that children or legal heirs are duty-bound to ensure the basic care, physical needs, and emotional support of their aged parents. To facilitate this, the Act establishes Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals at district and sub-divisional levels for the speedy disposal of complaints and enforcement of orders.

One of the most significant provisions under this Act is Section 23, which deals with the protection of property rights of senior citizens. It states that if a senior citizen gifts or transfers property to someone on the condition that the transferee will provide for their basic physical and emotional needs, and that condition is not fulfilled, the transfer can be declared void. Such transfers are deemed to have been made under fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Furthermore, Section 23(2) ensures that even if the estate is transferred to another person, the right to maintenance continues, provided the new owner had notice of such a right or the transfer was gratuitous.

The judicial understanding of the MWPSC Act has evolved over the years. In the landmark 2020 case of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the Supreme Court acknowledged the power of the Tribunal to order eviction, even though the Act does not explicitly mention the word "eviction". The bench comprising then Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee ruled that if eviction is necessary and expedient for the protection and maintenance of a senior citizen, it falls within the scope of the Act. This judgment clarified that the power to evict is implicit under Section 23(2), especially when the person residing in the property has breached the obligation to maintain the elderly.

A recent reaffirmation of this interpretation came in the 2025 case of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and Others, where the Supreme Court again emphasized the beneficial nature of the MWPSC Act. Urmila Dixit, the appellant, had gifted her property to her son under a clear condition that he would maintain her and ensure a peaceful life. This condition was also captured in a separate promissory note. However, due to mistreatment, the mother approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who declared the Gift Deed void. The decision was upheld by the Collector and a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but reversed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, ruled in favour of the mother, holding that Section 23 is not a standalone provision but intrinsically linked to the welfare purpose of the Act. The Court held that both legal conditions under Section 23 had been satisfied—namely, the presence of a condition of maintenance and the failure to uphold it—thereby ordering the restoration of possession of the property to the mother.

On the other hand, the recent March 2025 judgment by the Supreme Court in another case underscores that not every failure in a family relationship warrants eviction under the MWPSC Act. In this case, the court examined the plea of a senior couple seeking the eviction of their son on grounds of mental torture and negligence. Although a Tribunal had earlier restricted the son’s access within the house, it did not pass an eviction order, instead allowing him limited access to a utensil shop and residential space within the same premises. The couple appealed, seeking a complete eviction. However, the Court observed that there was no new evidence of further harassment, and ruled that eviction is not mandatory in every situation, especially in the absence of continuing neglect or abuse. The court reaffirmed that each case must be judged on its individual merits, with eviction orders being a last resort, meant only for circumstances where they are “necessary and expedient” for the well-being of the senior citizen.

Another layer of complexity arises in cases where the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) intersect with the Senior Citizens Act. The DV Act grants residence rights to women in shared households, even when they do not own the property. In S. Vanitha’s case, the Supreme Court balanced the woman’s rights under the DV Act with the senior citizens' right to peaceful living under the MWPSC Act, holding that tribunals must carefully assess the competing rights involved.

Overall, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, provides an important legal remedy for elderly citizens facing neglect or exploitation by their children or legal heirs. It recognizes that abandonment and mistreatment of the elderly is not just a social problem but a legal one. The Act empowers authorities to levy penalties, including fines or imprisonment for up to three months, for abandonment or failure to pay maintenance. It also lays down a clear administrative structure, placing implementation responsibilities on District Magistrates and subordinate officers, and requiring State Governments to prepare action plans for the protection of senior citizens’ life and property.

In conclusion, while the MWPSC Act, 2007 does not guarantee automatic eviction rights, courts and tribunals can order eviction in exceptional cases where the senior citizen’s right to a dignified life is endangered. Section 23 remains the cornerstone for such remedies, ensuring that property transfers made with care obligations are not exploited, and that elderly citizens are not left helpless after transferring their hard-earned assets. However, the courts continue to emphasize a case-by-case approach, balancing legal rights with compassionate justice.

---

With reference to the Senior Citizens Act, consider the following statements:

1. It allows parents (age 60 and above) who are unable to maintain themselves “from his own earnings or property owned by him” to file a suit for maintenance against their children or relatives (legal heirs).

2. The act does not place an obligation on these children or relatives to meet the parents’ needs.

3. The Act gives parents an avenue to receive maintenance even after transferring or gifting their property.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None

Ans B

Explanation

— The Supreme Court rejected a suit filed by a senior couple to evict their son from their home by invoking the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act). The Act provides a streamlined process for senior parents — often neglected and lacking financial support — to file suits seeking maintenance from their children.

— Though the Act does not directly grant parents the authority to expel their children or relatives from their house, the Supreme Court has construed the clause governing property transfers to authorise such eviction orders in certain instances.

— The Senior Citizens Act allows parents (60 and older) who are unable to support themselves “from his own earnings or property owned by him” to launch a maintenance claim against their children or relatives (legal heirs). Hence, statement 1 is correct.

— It obligates these children or relatives to address the parents’ requirements “so that such parents may lead a normal life”. The Act also creates specific tribunals to hear these lawsuits, as well as appellate tribunals to hear challenges to any rulings issued. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.

— Crucially, Section 23 of the Act allows parents to collect support even after they transfer or donate their property. A senior citizen may donate or transfer property with the stipulation that the receiver “shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs” under Section 23(1). If this criterion is not met, the transfer “shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion, or under undue influence” and might be declared void if the senior citizen petitions the tribunal. Hence, statement 3 is correct.