Harassment of elderly parents costs son dear: Jharkhand HC orders eviction from self-acquired home

On February 10, 2026, Justice Rajesh Kumar of Jharkhand High Court held that every inheritance requires a certain duty also, if a son and daughter-in-law wants to take some benefit of inheritance, then they are duty bound to give a proper ambiance to the parents through whom the property is being claimed that they should feel secure and comfortable.

Based on this reasoning, the Jharkhand High Court ordered eviction of the son and his wife (the daughter-in-law), ruling in favour of the senior citizen parents’ under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

So, what led to this legal dispute between the senior citizen parents and their son?

Mr Poddar, after retiring from a central government owned company, was living peacefully with his wife at Mamtagarha Bazar Tand village in Jharkhand. Unfortunately, his son and daughter-in-law reportedly mistreated both him and his wife, which led him to file a legal case before the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in 2022.


Mr Poddar wanted them (son and daughter-in-law) to leave his house so he could enjoy a peaceful life, as they (son and daughter-in-law) were causing him distress. The Ramgarh sub-divisional magistrate issued a favourable order on November 23, 2022 and ordered the son and the daughter-in-law to vacate the premises. However, the matter reached the Deputy Commissioner (appellate authority), who modified the eviction order in the son and daughter-in-law’s favour.

Unhappy with the deputy commissioner (appellate authority)’s order, Mr Poddar appealed to the Jharkhand High Court and won the case on February 10, 2026.

Also read: Son denies elderly parents entry to Mumbai homes upon their return from village; SC orders him to vacate properties and pay maintenance

Why did the senior citizen parents win this case?

Nidhi Singh, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP, said to ET Wealth Online: "The Jharkhand HC in this case (W.P.(C) No.2353 of 2024) allowed the writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh’s order that set aside the Sub Divisional Officer’s order directing protection of the Petitioners’ peaceful possession against the disturbances by their son and daughter‑in‑law.

Singh says that the Jharkhand High Court relied on the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Supreme Court decision in Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Ors. [(2025) SCC Online SC 2077], and confirmed the eviction of the son and daughter‑in‑law to secure the and protection of senior citizens.

Does this win for the senior citizen parents mean their son is cut out of the inheritance rights?

According to Singh, under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu son has a share in ancestral property, so the Jharkhand HC’s decision does not affect the Respondents’ succession rights in ancestral property. For self acquired property, however, the parents may exclude a child by bequeathing the same via a Will.

Singh says: "This judgment merely protects the senior citizens’ rights to peaceful residence and dignity and does not impact the succession rights of the children."

Jharkhand High Court analysis and discussion

Jharkhand High Court gave this judgement (2026:JHHC:3497) on February 10, 2026.

Jharkhand High Court said that so far as merit of the case is concerned, the factual matrix is clear :-

1. the property, in question, is a self acquired property of the senior citizens i.e. the petitioners.
2. there is allegation by the senior citizens and the same has been inquired into by the appellate authority and it has been found that there is serious property dispute also between the parties.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The jurisprudence under which the present Act has been created is The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007 reads as under: (an extract)

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances

(1). Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.”

There is a clear dispute and dislike between the parents and son

The Jharkhand High Court said that the jurisprudence is clear that it is for the benefit of the senior citizens. The mental harassment is more or less in the area of perception then the actual facts.

Ascertaining the actual facts and interaction between the parties is a difficult area.

Jharkhand High Court said: “The report collected by the appellate authority as well as the original authority, clearly suggests that there is a dispute and disliking for each other. The ambiance and finding clearly suggests that they cannot co-exists in the same house.”

The Jharkhand High Court said that when co-existence in the same house is not possible, then the mandate of law is clear that the house in question should be handed over to the senior citizen, who has earned it through years of hard work. At the later stages of life, he deserves a secure and peaceful life.

Every inheritance requires certain duty also

The Jharkhand High Court said that whatever claim of the son and daughter-in-law have is through inheritance and not otherwise.

Jharkhand High Court said: “Every inheritance requires a certain duty also. If the son and daughter-in-law want to take some benefit of inheritance, then they are duty bound to give a proper ambiance to the parents through whom the property is being claimed that they should feel secure and comfortable.”

Supreme Court mandate exists

Jharkhand High Court said that it is also the mandate of the Supreme Court, as has been held in para – 7, in the case of Kamalakant Mishra Vs. Additional Collector & Ors., reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2077.

Para 7 of Supreme Court judgement cited above: (an extract)

The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, the provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose.

This court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order 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.

Jharkhand HC judgement

In view of above discussions, Jharkhand High Court finds that the order passed by the appellate authority dated February 23, 2024 is not as per the Aims and Object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the same is, hereby, set aside. With above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

(The appellate authority on February 23, 2024 had reversed the son and daughter-in-law’s eviction order. This order is now reversed by Jharkhand High Court and thus the son and daughter-in-law now has to vacate the parents’ property)