Take care of your parents or leave, Telangana High Court tells man in property dispute

The case stems from the petitioners’ allegations of ill treatment against their children. (Photo: AI Generated)

The Telangana High Court last week ordered a man and his wife to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 6,000 to his parents and provide adequate care, especially to the bedridden mother, or else they would have no right to continue living in their parents’ property.

Justice T Madhavi Devi delivered the order on January 6 on a writ petition filed by a Secunderabad-based couple, aged 71 years and 66 years, who sought the court’s intervention to declare an order of the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act 2007.

The Hyderabad district collector, after considering the contentions of both parties and verifying the report of the Secunderabad revenue divisional officer, directed all four children and their families on January 3, 2025, to vacate the parents’ property within 30 days and observed that the parents have the freedom to decide on the disposal of the property as per their will and wish.

While this order was challenged by the oldest son and wife, the department, which is the commissioner-cum-appellate authority, ordered on July 22, 2025, that the oldest son and his wife could continue to stay in their portion on the third floor of the property without causing any disturbance or harassment to the parents and that they should share the responsibility along with other children to provide care and support to the parents as and when required.

The appellate authority’s decision to set aside the eviction was based on the finding that the children had contributed to the development of the property. While the father had initially purchased the land, a ground-plus-three-floor structure was constructed in 2009 with the apparent financial contribution of the children. The appellate authority also took into account the financial hardships faced by the son’s family due to his daughter’s medical condition.

During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamalakant Mishra Vs. Additional Collector and others, wherein it was observed that a tribunal can evict children from senior citizens’ property for their failure to maintain them. He also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Roy Vs. the State of Bihar and others for similar relief.

Justice T Madhavi Devi acknowledged the children’s contribution to the property’s development and stated that the property cannot be termed the self-acquired property of the petitioner alone. She also stated that the oldest son and his family cannot be denied the right to stay in the property, but maintained that this did not absolve them of their duties under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

The court ordered that “the order of the appellate authority needs no interference except to direct respondents 5 and 6 to pay a sum of Rs 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month to the petitioners jointly, and they shall also take care of the petitioners, particularly the mother, i.e., petitioner No.2 herein, who is allegedly bedridden.”

In a stern statement thereafter, Justice Devi said, “If respondents 5 and 6 do not take care of the mother, petitioner No. 2, then they shall have no right to seek continuation in the subject property.”