Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 2: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has stayed an order directing a son and daughter-in-law to vacate their matrimonial and residential home in Doda, observing that eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can prima facie be ordered only when necessary to enforce the right to maintenance and protection.
Justice Shahzad Azeem passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Sheraz Ahmed and another challenging the October 22, 2026, order of the Appellate Tribunal (District Magistrate, Doda), which had directed them to vacate the residential premises within 30 days.
The dispute arose after the father approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his self-acquired residential property situated at Ward No. 4, Doda, near Dessa Road.
The Maintenance Tribunal, through its order dated May 2, 2026, had restrained the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession, life and property of the father. However, the Appellate Tribunal subsequently directed their eviction.
Advocate Syed Asim Hashmi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Senior Citizens Act provides remedies relating to maintenance and protection but does not independently authorise eviction merely on the basis of a standalone application seeking possession.
Senior Advocate D.C. Raina, appearing for the father, submitted that the senior citizen was residing in his self-acquired property and was unable to live peacefully due to the conduct of the petitioners. Allegations concerning the son’s involvement in drug-related cases were also raised before the Court. Advocate F.A. Natnoo appeared for the respondent side.
Examining the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court judgment in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Azeem observed that eviction could be justified as an incident of enforcing an order relating to maintenance and protection.
The Court noted that the father had approached the Tribunal seeking eviction without independently seeking maintenance or protection and had himself claimed sufficient financial resources for his sustenance.
The Bench observed that, in the absence of this basic statutory requirement, the eviction order appeared prima facie to have been passed in contravention of the Act.
The Court also considered that the daughter-in-law had obtained an order restraining her eviction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Consequently, the High Court stayed the operation of the Appellate Tribunal’s order until the next hearing, subject to objections from the respondents.
However, the Court made it clear that the petitioners must neither harass the father nor attempt to evict him from his house.
The jurisdictional Station House Officer has been directed to ensure compliance with the order. The matter has been listed for December 14, 2026. (JNF) |
