Mumbai News

Bombay HC restrains mother from evicting constable son from Thane flat – Hindustan Times

The Bombay high court (HC) recently refused to allow a woman from executing an eviction order against her son passed by a sub-divisional officer (SDO) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The order had authorised the woman to evict her son and his family so that she could live peacefully with her daughter at her Thane home.

While observing that the SDO had failed to consider that the woman was getting a pension of ₹10,000 and her son had a liability of repaying a loan which he had taken for repair of the house in question, the HC passed the restraining order on the mother.

A single bench of justice Nitin Sambre, after hearing the petition of the son and his wife, was informed by advocate Shubham Misar that the petitioner was employed with the police department as a constable after his father’s demise in 1991. The constable’s father had acquired two flats, and after his demise, one of the flats was transferred to the petitioner. In 1992, the constable’s mother’s name was entered into the property card of both flats.

It was further submitted that the constable was living with his mother, three sisters and his own family in one of the two flats till 2015. He later moved into the second flat after spending around ₹8 lakh on repairs. However, one of his three sisters was insisting on selling the flat he occupied, and hence he sought an interim stay against the eviction order issued by the SDO in January. The SDO had also ordered him to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to his mother.

The constable, while pointing to the lacunae in the SDO’s order, stated that though his mother was receiving a pension of ₹15,000 and his sister who stayed with their mother was also earning, the SDO had failed to take note of the same and had put the burden of maintenance on him. In light of this and the fact that he would be left without a roof over his head, the constable sought direction from the court to set aside the SDO order. The constable further submitted that in view of the order of the HC full bench restraining eviction, dispossession and demolition during the pandemic situation, the mother should be restrained from executing the eviction order.

After hearing the submissions of the constable, the bench observed that the SDO order did not deal with the contentions raised by the constable. Granting interim relief, the bench said, “In view of the above, respondents [the mother and SDO] are restrained from executing the order impugned against the petitioner.”