Orissa High Court upholds elderly man's right to stay in ancestral home

Court upholds tribunal order allowing 86-year-old to reside in his ancestral house, reinforcing dignity and protection of senior citizens under the law

In a significant judgment that reinforced the rights of senior citizens, the Orissa High Court allowed an 86-year-old man to reside on the ground floor of his ancestral house in Bhubaneswar, dismissing writ petitions filed by his son, who allegedly wanted to evict him.

 

The single-judge bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera refused to interfere with the order of a tribunal passed on August 7, 2025, holding that the direction was in consonance with the object of the law to ensure dignity and security for elderly citizens.

 

The case stemmed from a dispute between the octogenarian and his youngest son over their ancestral property at Baramunda in Bhubaneswar. The elderly father, a retired government employee and pensioner, had approached the Sub-Divisional Senior Citizens’ Tribunal in February 2025 alleging that he had been subjected to harassment, humiliation and was forced to leave his parental home by his son. Following the dispute, he had to take shelter with his other two sons in different parts of the city.

 

 

In his plea, the 86-year-old man had also sought protection of his life and property and prayed for revocation of certain property purchased in his son’s name. After considering the complaint and a police report, the Sub-Collector of Bhubaneswar, who acted as the tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directed the son to vacate the ground floor of the Baramunda house for his father to enable him to live safely.

 

The tribunal had also directed the son to refrain from abusive behaviour and to treat his father with respect, while observing that the property dispute itself was civil in nature and sub judice before a competent authority.

 

Challenging the order, the son moved the High Court seeking its quashing, while the father filed a separate petition seeking additional relief. Hearing both petitions together, the court noted that the two-storey ancestral house is currently occupied by the son and his family on the first floor, whereas the elderly father wishes to spend the remainder of his life on the ground floor of the same property.

 

Taking into account the father’s advanced age, the death of his wife and his desire to live in his parental home, the court held that the tribunal’s order was consistent with Rule 19 of the Odisha Maintenance Rules, which mandates that senior citizens must be able to live with “security and dignity.”

 

Justice Behera pointed out that the 2007 Act is a welfare legislation intended to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens. Courts, he said, must adopt a “purpose-oriented approach” rather than a narrow or literal interpretation.

 

Citing precedents, the court reiterated that if children cannot care for their parents, they should at least not make their lives “a living hell.”

 

“The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules thereof are beneficial legislations… The primary object of the Act is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens. When the present age of the father is 86 years and he is extremely old and his wife has died and when Rule 19 provides that the senior citizens shall be able to live with security and dignity… I find no justification for making any interference with the impugned order…” read the judgment passed by Justice Behera on March 17.

 

Observing that there was no infirmity in the tribunal’s order, the High Court found no merit in the son’s petition and dismissed it. The father’s petition was also rejected on the ground that he had an alternative statutory remedy under the Act and could not bypass the appellate mechanism provided therein.