Karnataka HC upholds eviction of doctor from home over harassment of his 82-year-old mother

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the eviction of a government doctor from his residence after his 82-year-old mother alleged that he and his wife were harassing her and interfering with her peaceful life [Dr. M S Mahesh v. Deputy Commissioner].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj took note of Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Among other provisions, this Section calls on the State to to frame an action plan for the protection of life and property of senior citizens.

The High Court held that the expression "protection of life and property of senior citizens” under Section 22 is wide enough to protect a senior citizen's enjoyment of her home.

The Bench added that the statutory protection extends beyond the mere payment of maintenance and can include removing any source of harassment from a senior citizen's residence where the facts justify such action.

“For a senior citizen, it carries with it the right to live with dignity, and that includes the right to reside peacefully in her own home without fear, harassment or humiliation,” the Court said in its August 6 order.

The Court proceeded to dismiss a petition filed by a doctor challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Mysuru Deputy Commissioner directing his eviction from the residential premises he shared with his aged mother.

The said orders was passed on a plea by the mother seeking protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to implement the eviction orders within 60 days.

The proceedings arose after one, Dr. MS Mahesh's mother, Subhadramma, approached the Assistant Commissioner in April 2023, alleging harassment at the Mysuru house.

She alleged that her son had wrongfully confined her and her sister by locking them in a dark room and that Mahesh's wife was repeatedly picking quarrels with her, depriving her of a peaceful life.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered Dr. Mahesh and his family to vacate the premises on August 12, 2024. The Deputy Commissioner subsequently dismissed Dr. Mahesh's appeal and affirmed the eviction order on February 4, 2025.

Dr. Mahesh then approached the High Court, which rejected his plea and confirmed the eviction orders.

The Court, however, also cautioned that eviction is a serious power and cannot be exercised mechanically. A major factor in the Court's decision was the statement made by Subhadramma herself during the proceedings through video conferencing.

The Court noted that both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had found harassment, and that the senior citizen herself confirmed the allegations before the High Court. The Court consequently held that the eviction direction was a proper exercise of the protective power under Section 22 of the Act.

In doing so, it also rejected Dr. Mahesh's arguments against the eviction. He had contended that he, his wife and children had been residing in the Mysuru property for decades and should not be evicted.

The Court was not persuaded by this contention, particularly in view of Mahesh's posting as a Taluk Health Officer in an area that was around 150 kilometres from Mysuru.

It found it difficult to accept that he travelled between the two places every day while simultaneously discharging the responsibilities attached to his post.

Dr. Mahesh had also claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a Will executed by his father, the late M. Shivanna.

The mother disputed this claim, contending that subsequent Wills had superseded the Will relied upon by Mahesh. A civil suit concerning the property is also pending.

The High Court clarified that its observations concerning the competing Wills and title were only prima facie and would not bind the civil court.

It specifically directed that the civil suit and any other proceedings concerning the property be decided independently and on their own merits.

The Court further held that the existence of such a title dispute did not prevent the statutory authorities from exercising their protective jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act in the circumstances of the case, while confirming the eviction orders under challenge.

Advocate KS Bheemaiah appeared for Dr. M S Mahesh/son.

Additional Government Advocate Mohammed Jaffar Shah appeared for the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.

Advocate K Murthy appeared for Subhadramma.

[Read Judgement]