The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the eviction of a son-in-law from his retired father-in-law's property, ruling that the senior citizen had a legitimate need for the property to support his family.

The Court upheld the decision of a lower court, which had determined that the property should be returned to the senior citizen, who needed it as a source of additional income to support his wife and children.

The appellant, a son-in-law, claimed he had a right to stay in his father-in-law's house due to his Rs. 1,00,000 contribution to its construction. He argued he was not obligated to maintain his father-in-law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as he was not considered a 'child'. The father-in-law countered, stating that as part of the family, the appellant should support him, emphasizing his need for the property to earn additional income due to his lack of pension and responsibility for a sick wife and children.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain said, “the relations of the appellant with respondent No.3 are not cordial then, mere facet of income cannot be looked into but a peaceful income giving satisfaction to the owner of the property who happens to be a senior citizen in another facet which is to be understood and imbibed by implication while interpreting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007. When the whole facts of the case are examined from said prospective, then there is a senior citizen, he is in need of the property and that need is bonafide and for peaceful purposes, therefore, petitioner having failed to establish any of his rights over the property, is not entitled to continue in the property dehors the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Collector”

The Court observed that while there was no formal transfer of property in this case, the provisions of the Act still applied, as the appellant had been living in the property as a permissive occupant. The Court added, “The transfer of property includes permissive transfer or gratuitous transfer in favour of a person and if the senior citizen is able to demonstrate his need than that transfer can be declared as null and void in terms of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act of 2007”

The bench noted that the definition of "children" in the Act, while not exhaustive, could extend to include the son-in-law by implication, especially when the property was given to his daughter, and after her death, the son-in-law's responsibilities could be considered in the context of supporting the senior citizen. The Court also ruled that the appellant's claim of adverse possession over the property was not substantiated by any formal agreement or evidence.

As a result, the Court upheld the lower court's ruling, which directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days. Should the appellant fail to comply, the Court authorized the Station House Officer (SHO) to remove the appellant's belongings and return the property to the father-in-law. The Court concluded that the senior citizen had a legitimate and urgent need for the property to ensure his financial stability and care for his family.

Cause Title: Dilip Marmat v. Collector & Ors., [2025:MPHC-JBP:3991]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Prateek Jain

Respondent: Advocates S.S. Chouhan, N.S. Ruprah

Click here to read/download Order