Karnataka HC Asks Son Who "Manhandled" Parents To Vacate Parent's House [Read Order]
Karnataka High Court recently directed a man to vacate his parent's house, taking serious note of the fact that he had manhandled them.In doing so, Justice Alok Aradhe observed, "Our Society is a Traditional society, and its core value is to provide care for elderly and to treat them with respect. However, with changing times, the joint family system has gone into the oblivion and...
Karnataka High Court recently directed a man to vacate his parent's house, taking serious note of the fact that he had manhandled them.
In doing so, Justice Alok Aradhe observed, "Our Society is a Traditional society, and its core value is to provide care for elderly and to treat them with respect. However, with changing times, the joint family system has gone into the oblivion and nuclear families have emerged. Therefore, many elderly persons are forced to spend evening of their life in loneliness and they are subjected to emotional neglect and are deprived of physical and financial support."
The court was hearing a petition filed by one Skanda Sharath, challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directing him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to his parents as maintenance.
The petitioner and his wife had been staying at his parent's property, but the parents had asked him to vacate it on the premise that they needed to rent it out for want of money. The impugned order had also directed the petitioner-son to hand over his this property back to them.
The court, however, sided with the parents. It rejected the contention that Section 23 of the Act would not come into picture as the property had not been transferred to the son. It opined that the provision, which declares transfer of property void in certain circumstances, is not limited to ownership rights.
It explained, "Thus, if the expression 'property' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act is read in conjunction with Section 23(1) of the Act, it is axiomatic that the expression 'transfer of property' used in Section 23(1) of the Act would include even permission to occupy the property of a senior citizen as the same would tantamount to creating an interest in the immovable property."
The court further noted that the petitioner-son had admittedly manhandled his parents, who had then registered criminal cases against him. It therefore ruled that he cannot be permitted to stay in the property as he was only allowed to do so subject to the condition that he would not harm his parents physically or emotionally.
Read the Order Here