Introduction:

In Pushpa Sharma Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA No. 10504 of 2025, the Calcutta High Court was confronted with an important question concerning the scope of authority vested in the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The matter was adjudicated by Justice Krishna Rao, who examined whether the Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 4 and 5 of the 2007 Act, could direct eviction of children from the residential property of a senior citizen. The dispute arose from a deeply personal and emotionally charged conflict between an elderly mother, Pushpa Sharma, and her two sons regarding occupation of a three storied house situated at Paschim Medinipur. After the death of her husband, the mother alleged that her sons had driven her out of the house and had neglected to provide financial and emotional support. She approached the Sub Divisional Officer, acting as the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000 along with reimbursement of medical expenses. By orders dated September 6 and December 6, 2024, the Tribunal directed the sons to pay maintenance and further ordered them to vacate the premises within three months. One of the sons challenged the eviction direction before the High Court, while the mother sought enforcement of the entire order. The central issue before the High Court was whether the Tribunal had the statutory authority to pass an eviction order in proceedings that were initiated solely for maintenance under the 2007 Act.

Arguments of the Petitioner Son:

On behalf of the petitioner son, it was argued that the Maintenance Tribunal had exceeded its statutory jurisdiction in directing eviction from the property. Counsel submitted that the scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly Chapter II dealing with maintenance, confines the Tribunal’s powers to determining and awarding monthly maintenance. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, it was contended, are explicit in their scope and do not confer any authority to adjudicate disputes relating to title, possession, or eviction. The petitioner emphasized that eviction is a serious civil consequence that affects proprietary and possessory rights and therefore cannot be ordered in a summary proceeding intended merely to secure maintenance for senior citizens. It was further argued that the 2007 Act provides a speedy and inexpensive remedy for financial support and was never intended to function as a substitute for civil courts in property disputes. The petitioner maintained that if the mother sought eviction or recovery of possession, she must pursue appropriate remedies under civil law rather than invoking maintenance provisions. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal performs quasi judicial functions and its orders are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the High Court was competent to examine the legality and jurisdictional validity of the eviction direction. While not disputing the maintenance component, the petitioner sought setting aside of the portion of the order directing him to vacate the premises.

Arguments of the Respondent Mother:

The respondent mother, Pushpa Sharma, through her counsel, supported the Tribunal’s order in its entirety. It was submitted that the spirit and objective of the 2007 Act is to protect senior citizens from neglect, abuse, and exploitation by their children. The mother contended that she had been forcibly driven out of her own house after the death of her husband and had been left without support. According to her, the sons had not only failed in their statutory duty to maintain her but had also usurped her residence, thereby depriving her of shelter and dignity. It was argued that the power to ensure effective maintenance necessarily includes the power to secure peaceful residence of the senior citizen in her own property. The mother maintained that a narrow interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 would defeat the beneficial object of the legislation. She urged that the Tribunal’s direction to vacate was essential to restore her possession and ensure her welfare. Counsel emphasized that the Act is a welfare statute and must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable senior citizens from dispossession and harassment. It was also argued that denying the Tribunal authority to order eviction would compel elderly parents to engage in prolonged civil litigation, contrary to the legislative intent of providing swift and effective relief.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Krishna Rao undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court observed that Chapter II of the Act deals specifically with maintenance of parents and senior citizens and outlines a summary mechanism for adjudication. Sections 4 and 5 empower the Tribunal to entertain applications for maintenance and to determine the amount payable on a monthly basis. The Court emphasized that the language of these provisions is clear and confined to financial maintenance. There is neither any direct nor indirect reference to eviction or to adjudication of property rights within these sections. The Court categorically observed that Sections 4 and 5 only contemplate grant of maintenance and that the Tribunal cannot pass an order of eviction on such an application. The Court further noted that the statute establishes a summary procedure to ensure speedy and inexpensive relief to senior citizens in matters of maintenance. It was not designed to replace civil courts in resolving complex disputes concerning title, possession, or eviction. Such matters require detailed evidence and adjudication beyond the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The High Court also clarified that the Maintenance Tribunal performs quasi judicial functions and its orders are amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the High Court was justified in examining whether the Tribunal had acted within the bounds of its authority. While acknowledging the plight of the elderly mother and upholding the maintenance component of the Tribunal’s order, the Court held that the direction requiring the son to vacate the premises was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the eviction portion of the order was quashed, while the maintenance award remained undisturbed. The judgment thus strikes a balance between protecting the rights of senior citizens and preserving the statutory limits of quasi judicial bodies. It underscores that even welfare legislation must operate within clearly defined legal boundaries and that jurisdiction cannot be expanded by implication beyond what the statute expressly provides.