Review: Supreme Court Rules Eviction is Permissible by Tribunal if there is a Breach of Obligation to Maintain the Senior Citizen.

Importand COurt JUdgements_Featured Image

In this edition of the court judgments review, we examine the Supreme Court’s ruling on the failure to maintain parents in relation to rights over parental property, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s decision on ensuring timely payment to contractors, the Bombay High Court’s rulings on a wife’s entitlement to her husband’s family pension in cases involving adultery and on whether disclosure of identity and date of birth amounts to disclosure of personal information, and the Delhi High Court’s observations on vindictive prosecutions under the POCSO Act.

Supreme Court: Eviction is permissible by the Tribunal if there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.

In Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and others, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.

The appellant, Kamalakant Mishra, an 80-year-old senior citizen, along with his 78-year-old wife, owned two properties in Mumbai. Their eldest son (Respondent No. 3), despite being financially stable, occupied the properties and did not permit the appellant and his wife to reside in them. Consequently, the appellant filed an application under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of the occupants and monthly maintenance.

The Maintenance Tribunal directed eviction and ordered maintenance of ₹3,000/month. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this order. However, the Bombay High Court allowed the son’s writ petition, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass eviction orders against another senior citizen, as the son had turned 60. The major issues for consideration were:

The appellant argued that the respondent was not a senior citizen at the time of filing and had violated his statutory duty to maintain his parents. The respondent contended that the Tribunal could not evict him since he too qualified as a senior citizen.

The Supreme Court clarified that the relevant date to determine status as a senior citizen is the date of filing of the application. Since the respondent was 59 then, he could not invoke Section 2(h). Relying on S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021), the Court held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to evict children/relatives who fail to maintain senior citizens.

Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC: The State, as a party to contractual engagements, is duty-bound to discharge its financial obligations promptly and without undue delay.

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in M/s Saint Soldier Engineer and Contractor Pvt. Ltd vs. UT of J&K, held that the State is duty-bound to discharge its financial obligations promptly and without undue delay. Failure to honour financial obligations by the State amounts to a systemic breach of public trust and administrative accountability.

M/s Saint Soldier Engineer and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. was awarded road construction work by the PWD in 2015 for ₹50.33 lakh, later revised to ₹2.37 crore due to enhanced specifications. The contractor completed the work in 2017, but ₹97.87 lakh remained unpaid despite final bills and repeated representations. Official communications in 2016, 2018, and 2020 acknowledged the liability, but the Government cited a paucity of funds. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of dues with 12% interest.

The major issues for consideration are whether the petitioner’s claim was barred by limitation and whether the State could justify withholding admitted payments citing financial constraints.

The Court noted that the liability was repeatedly acknowledged, including in 2018 and 2020, extending the limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act,1963. It held that non-payment constituted a continuing cause of action. Citing precedents such as Union Territory of J&K vs. Mohammad Atzal Reshi (2024), K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2011), Ramakrishna Construction Co. vs. Union of India (2010), and Surya Constructions vs. State of U.P. (1986), the Court emphasised that withholding admitted dues violates Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution. It further observed that the State, as a model litigant, cannot arbitrarily delay payment and that officers responsible for delays could face personal liability for interest.

It held that the State cannot enrich itself at the expense of private individuals and simultaneously resist its obligation to compensate for the time-value of money, and failure to honour financial obligations hampers infrastructure development, and erodes investor and contractor confidence.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Government to release ₹97.87 lakh with 6% interest from 2017 until payment, and to design a framework ensuring the release of contractors’ dues within 60 days.

Bombay HC: Mere allegations of adultery will not disentitle wife from claiming right in family’s pension.

In VVB vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that adultery allegations against the wife do not disentitle her from claiming her right in family pension, in the absence of any findings of adultery.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: Vaishali Burande’s husband, employed as an Associate Professor at a Government Medical College since July 2009, died of a heart attack in September 2018. The couple married in 1997, had two sons (born in 1998 and 2005). Following marital discord and a pending divorce petition filed in 2011 alleging adultery, the husband changed his nominee from his wife to his brother in June 2014, while retaining his sons as nominees. After his death, Vaishali and her sons claimed pensionary benefits, but faced opposition from the deceased’s mother and brother (respondents 5 and 6).

The major issue for consideration was whether the widow and minor sons were entitled to a family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR 1982), despite the deceased being employed under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) post-November 2005, and the deceased having nominated his brother as a beneficiary.

The petitioners argued that subsequent Government Resolutions dated 29 September 2018 and 31 March 2023 granted family pension rights under MCSR 1982 even for DCPS employees, and they qualified as “family” under Rules 115-116 of MCSR 1982. The respondents contended that only DCPS applied, benefits should go to nominated persons (the brother and sons), and the widow was disqualified due to adultery allegations.

The Court noted that the nomination form submitted in 2014 was under MCSR 1982 (inapplicable then), making it invalid. The Government Resolution of 31 March 2023 retrospectively granted family pension under MCSR 1982 to families of employees who died after 1 November 2005. Under Rule 116(16)(b) of MCSR 1982, “family” includes wife, sons under 21, and unmarried daughters under 24, excluding the mother and brother. It further held that since the adultery allegation never reached judicial determination, the wife couldn’t be excluded.

Accordingly, the Court directed the release of family pension and benefits under MCSR 1982 to the petitioners, with arrears from the date of death payable within eight weeks, failing which 9% annual interest would apply. The sons were entitled to benefits until attaining majority, while the widow would receive an ongoing family pension.

Bombay HC: Disclosure of the information through proof of identity (POI), proof of address (POA) and proof of birth (POB) would not result in disclosing any personal information.

The Bombay High Court, in State of Goa vs. Unique Identification Authority of India, held that disclosure of the information through POI, POA and POB would not result in disclosing any personal document or personal information.

The State of Goa sought disclosure of documents and demographic information submitted by an Israeli national to obtain an Aadhaar card, who was arrested in Goa without valid travel documents and accused in several criminal cases, including narcotics and violation of the Foreigners Act. The State argued this information was necessary to investigate the legality of the Aadhaar’s issuance, given the respondent lacked a valid passport or visa at the time of enrolment, potentially making him ineligible under Section 3 of the Aadhaar Act.

The respondent objected to the disclosure on privacy grounds, citing the Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India decision, which recognised the right to privacy under Article 21. The State relied on several High Court precedents, including State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. UIDAI, that allowed limited disclosure for investigation purposes.

The Court ruled that demographic data certified by a Gazetted Officer does not infringe on sensitive personal privacy and that public interest in crime investigation outweighed privacy concerns in this context. The application was allowed, and UIDAI was directed to provide the necessary documents.

Delhi HC: The shield of child protection laws cannot be converted into a sword for vindictive prosecutions.

The Delhi High Court, in MS AM vs. Government of State of GNCT of Delhi, held that child protection laws cannot be used to settle personal scores and such conduct trivialises the gravity of offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 by reducing them to instruments of vengeance.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Mother of a minor girl reported sexual assault by the child’s father and cousin in January 2020. During the ongoing trial, the mother filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the child’s grandmother and three paternal aunts as additional accused, alleging they knew about the abuse and suppressed reporting. The trial court dismissed this application with Rs. 20,000 costs, prompting the current revision petition.

The major issue for deciding was whether additional family members could be summoned as accused based on the child victim’s testimony that they had knowledge of abuse and violated the Section 21 POCSO Act’s mandatory reporting duty.

The mother argued the child’s testimony established that family members knew about abuse, suppressed disclosure, and assaulted her when she tried reporting, citing Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014). The respondents contended that Section 319 should be used sparingly; no fresh evidence emerged, the testimony contained contradictions, and the application was motivated by matrimonial acrimony.

The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that Section 319 CrPC requires fresh, cogent, believable evidence. It held that no independent proof established that the proposed accused had actual knowledge of the assault to attract liability under Section 21, in the light of vague, uncorroborated, and contradictory statements from the child’s testimony.

The Court observed the application appeared motivated by matrimonial vengeance rather than the child’s welfare, constituting “gross misuse of judicial process” by using the child “as a weapon” to settle personal scores. It further held that summoning the accused on inconsistent testimony would abuse the process and characterised the attempt as exploiting child trauma for vindictive purposes.