In a stern ruling emphasizing the duty of children towards their aging parents, the Telangana High Court has ordered a man and his wife to either provide adequate care and monthly financial support to his elderly parents or vacate their property. Justice T Madhavi Devi delivered the order, blending legal mandate with moral obligation.
The Core of the Family Dispute
The case originated from a writ petition filed by an elderly couple from Secunderabad, aged 71 and 66 years. The parents accused their children, particularly their four sons and their families, of harassment and ill-treatment. The father claimed he had purchased the property and built a ground-plus-three-floor structure, only to be pressured by his children to vacate the premises.
Seeking protection and eviction of their sons, the couple approached the court to challenge an order from the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons. They argued it was illegal and violated the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Legal Journey: From Eviction to Conditional Stay
The legal battle saw several twists. Initially, the Hyderabad District Collector, on January 3, 2025, directed all four sons and their families to vacate the parents' property within 30 days. This order was based on a report from the Secunderabad Revenue Divisional Officer.
However, the oldest son and his wife challenged this. The appellate authority, on July 22, 2025, set aside the eviction. It found that the children had financially contributed to the construction of the multi-floor building in 2009. The authority also considered the son's family's financial hardship due to his daughter's medical condition. It permitted the oldest son and his wife to stay on the third floor, provided they did not harass the parents and shared care responsibilities.
High Court's Balanced Verdict
Justice T Madhavi Devi, hearing the petition on January 6, acknowledged the children's contribution to the property's development. She stated the property could not be termed the self-acquired asset of the father alone, thus recognizing the sons' stake. Consequently, she upheld their right to reside in the property.
However, the judge was unequivocal about their duties. She reinforced that the right to stay did not absolve them of their legal and filial responsibilities under the Senior Citizens Act. The court modified the appellate authority's order with a crucial directive.
The court ordered the oldest son and his wife (respondents 5 and 6) to jointly pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 6,000 to the petitioners. More importantly, they were mandated to take care of the parents, particularly the bedridden mother.
A Stern Ultimatum for Care
Justice Devi issued a clear warning, embedding a condition for their continued stay. She declared, "If respondents 5 and 6 do not take care of the mother, petitioner No. 2, then they shall have no right to seek continuation in the subject property." This directly ties their right to reside in the house to their performance of caregiving duties.
The judgment referenced Supreme Court precedents, including Kamalakant Mishra Vs. Additional Collector, which supports eviction of children who fail to maintain senior citizens. The court's final order stated that the appellate authority's decision needed no interference except for adding the monthly payment and care condition.
This ruling serves as a powerful reminder of the legal weight behind the moral imperative to care for elderly parents, setting a precedent for similar family disputes across Telangana and India.
