We Believe In “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”; But We Are On Brink Of “One Person One Family”: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court remarked that the very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of “one person one family”.

The Court remarked thus while upholding the High Court’s Judgment which set aside an Eviction Order passed by the Tribunal.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “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.”

The Bench clarified that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for the eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to a senior person.

“This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation with their children (sons) and the children (sons) are in litigation with their parents”, it also remarked.

Senior Advocate Pallav Shisodiya appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate S.K. Saxena appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A man (dead) aged about 75 years and his wife i.e., the Appellant aged about 68 years had three sons and two daughters. Out of the two daughters, one was married and the other was unmarried. The deceased had a house and various shops therein the lower part. One of the sops was occupied by the elder son carrying on the utensil business and the other son was doing an electrical business from the other shop. The third son was dead and his wife had remarried, whereas his son was living with the eldest son of the deceased’s eldest son. The third shop was gifted by the deceased to the younger daughter who had rented it out. Apart from that, the deceased had certain other properties as well. Allegedly, the relations of the deceased and his wife (Appellant) were not cordial with their sons. Consequently, in 2014, the deceased made an Application to the SDM alleging that his eldest son often beats him and tortures him mentally and physically and sought an appropriate action against him. In 2017, he along with the Appellant, initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons and the Family Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- per month, respectively.

It was alleged that the two daughters of the deceased started interfering in the family matters and the eldest daughter got a Gift Deed in her favour in respect of the lower part of the house. Thereafter, many other disputes also arose between the deceased and his sons. On initiation of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act before the Maintenance Tribunal, the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer but the conciliation was unsuccessful. The deceased had requested the Tribunal to evict his elder son from the house so that he could make his arrangements for a peaceful living. The Tribunal directed the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents, except the shop. Being dissatisfied with this decision, the deceased and the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the SDM’s Order and directed for the eviction of their elder son. The aggrieved son approached the High Court which partly allowed his Writ Petition by setting aside the Eviction Order. Resultantly, the deceased’s wife was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors 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. The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.”

The Court explained that the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case. It added that in this case, the Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of son or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.

“In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason that the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil court”, it further said.

The Court was of the opinion that there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of son from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

“In the light of the above situation, the High Court appears to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction order passed by the Tribunal and to maintain the other conditions imposed by the Tribunal”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the High Court’s Judgment.

Cause Title- Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 404)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Pallav Shisodiya, AOR Vinod Kumar Tewari, Advocates Bhoopesh Pandey, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, and SK Warish Ali.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena, AOR Aviral Saxena, Advocates Vikas Jain, Abhinav Sharma, and Shrawani Verma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment