India on brink of one person one family: Supreme Court on family disputes

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that while India upholds the philosophy of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" - the belief that the entire world is one family - today, we struggle to maintain unity even within our own immediate families, let alone extend this spirit to the world. [Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others].A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti was hearing a plea filed by 68-year-old Samtola Devi seeking the eviction of her eldest son, Krishna Kumar, from their family home in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that the very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family."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," court said..Devi and her deceased husband Kallu Mal owned a house with three shops in Sultanpur and had three sons and two daughters. Over time, disputes arose between the parents and their sons, particularly Krishna Kumar, who took over the family business. In 2014, Kallu Mal accused Krishna Kumar of abuse, and requesting the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. In 2017, the couple sought maintenance, which the family court granted at ₹8,000 per month, payable equally by two sons, Krishna Kumar and Janardan..In 2019, Kallu Mal and his wife filed for Krishna Kumar’s eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The maintenance tribunal ordered him not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents, but did not order eviction.Unsatisfied by this decision, the parents preferred an appeal before the appellate tribunal, which ordered for Kumar's eviction, but the High Court later reversed this.Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case in the High Court, Kallu Mal passed away. Following his death, his wife continued the legal proceedings and later approached the Supreme Court, seeking the eviction of their son. She argued that the house was her late husband's self-acquired property and that Krishna Kumar had no rightful claim to reside there..The Court upheld the order of the High Court and held that it had rightly set aside the appellate order passed by the Tribunal."The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior citizen," Court said..It observed that if the claim is accepted that the disputed house was Kallu Mal's self-acquired property and belonged solely to him, then after he transferred it to his daughters and son-in-law, he was no longer the owner. In that case, neither Kallu Mal nor his wife would have any right to evict anyone living in the house, it said..The Court added that there is no complaint or evidence on record suggesting that Krishna Kumar humiliated his parents or interfered with her living in any way."It was only in the contingency of Krishna Kumar not behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary against him."It further said that ordering Krishna Kumar’s eviction does not seem prudent, as, being a son, he also holds an implied license to reside in the house."It does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein. Therefore, the Tribunal appears to be justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein. Therefore, the Tribunal appears to be justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction.".Accordingly, the High Court's order was upheld, and the appeal seeking Krishna Kumar's eviction from the family home was dismissed..Senior Advocate Pallav Shishodia appeared for the parents..Senior Advocate SK Saxena and Advocate Aviral Saxena appeared for the private respondents..[Read Judgment]