Delhi HC Repels Challenge Against Rules Enabling District Magistrate To Evict Children Who Do Not Provide Maintenance To Parents [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking to quash the Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2016 for being ultra-vires the parent Act of 2007 and the Constitution.

The impugned Rules stipulate a summary procedure empowering the District Magistrate to effect the eviction of a senior citizen's son / daughter / legal heir from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. Subsequently, the remedy of eviction has been extended to "property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible and intangible" as opposed to only self-acquired property.

The petition filed by Aarshya Gulati challenged these rules. It was argued that the said Rules bring into existence a substantive right and a new remedy of eviction, which does not find any mention under any provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 .

Declining to accept the contention, the court has referred to its 2017 judgment in Sunny Paul and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi which had held that Maintenance Tribunal can order eviction of children if they deliberately neglect parents. The court had held that the claim for maintenance is not a condition precedent for passing an eviction order under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

The bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao noted that section 22 of the Act empowers the state government to confer such powers and duties on a District Magistrate for compliance of the provisions of the Act and for which purpose the state government shall prescribe a comprehensive Action Plan for protecting the life and property of senior citizens. Section 32 is the rule making power of the state government.

"So, it is clear that the Act itself empowers the State Government to confer such powers and duties on District Magistrate for protection of life and property of the senior citizens", the High Court said.

As to whether the state government could have formulated a summary procedure for eviction, the bench has observed that the objective for which the Parliament has enacted the Act is that because of withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support.

Although the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure is both time consuming as well as expensive. Therefore, the Act envisages the protection of life and property of the senior citizens.

"The 'protection of property' must be understood to mean where a senior citizen retains the property in his name and possession for his welfare and well being", the court noted.

So, the objective of the Act is to provide inexpensive and speedy protection of life and property of the senior citizens from the children / legal heirs, who are expected to maintain their parents but refuse or fail to provide basic amenities and other physical needs, which conduct shall amount to ill-treatment and non-maintenance and shall be a ground for parents to seek eviction of the children from the property, which is the only way for them to seek protection of their property so that they continue to have shelter over their head and sustain themselves independently, the bench headed by the Chief Justice has opined.

Click here to download judgment

Read Judgment