GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court has observed that while India embraces the philosophy of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"—the belief that the world is one family—the country is struggling to maintain unity even within immediate families in the modern day.
ALSO READ: Real ‘Golmaal’ As Bollywood Actor Shreyas Talpade Accused In Multi-Crore Chit Fund Scam
In its ruling on Thursday, March 27, the court remarked that the concept of family is eroding, bringing society to the brink of "one person, one family."
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti made this observation while hearing a plea filed by 68-year-old Samtola Devi, who sought the eviction of her eldest son, Krishna Kumar, from their family home in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The court, however, upheld an earlier oreder from the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the eviction request.
Devi and her late husband, Kallu Mal, owned a house with three shops and had three sons and two daughters. Disputes arose when Krishna Kumar took over the family business. In 2014, Kallu Mal accused him of abuse and sought action from authorities. In 2017, the couple secured maintenance of ₹8,000 per month, payable equally by two sons.
In 2019, the couple sought Krishna Kumar’s eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. While the maintenance tribunal restricted him from encroaching on the house without permission, it did not order eviction. The appellate tribunal later ruled in favour of eviction, but the High Court overturned the decision.
After Kallu Mal's death, Devi pursued the case in the Supreme Court, arguing that the house was her late husband's self-acquired property, and Krishna Kumar had no claim to reside there.
However, the court ruled that the Senior Citizens Act does not specifically provide for eviction proceedings. It further noted that once Kallu Mal transferred the house to his daughters and son-in-law, he lost ownership, making the eviction claim untenable.
The court also found no evidence of mistreatment by Krishna Kumar. It observed that, as a son, he had an implied right to reside in the house and upheld the High Court’s order dismissing the eviction plea.
