'We believe in vasudhaiva kutumbakam, but unable to remain united even with close kin': Supreme Court

“ The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family," the bench said.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday voiced concern over erosion of the very concept of ‘family’ and the people are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family.

“In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person, one family," a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said.

The court was dealing with "an unfortunate case" where parents were in litigation with their children (sons) and the children (sons) were in litigation with their parents.

The bench ruled in favour of a man, oldest in five siblings, whose mother sought to evict him from her house.

Considering the plea by Samtola Devi, the 68-year-old mother, the court said there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of the son from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

The High Court appears to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction order passed by the tribunal and to maintain the other conditions imposed by the tribunal.

In the case, one Kallu Mal, who passed away eventually, and his wife Samtola Devi had five children, including three sons and two daughters. The parents’ relations were not cordial with their sons. Consequently, on August 4, 2014, Kallu Mal made an application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur alleging that his eldest son often beats him and tortures him mentally and physically, and sought appropriate action against him.

In 2017, parents’ initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons before the principal judge, family court, Sultanpur.

The family court on December 4, 2018, awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000 to Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi each, totalling Rs 8,000 per month payable equally by two sons each month.

In 2018, against his parents’ wishes, the eldest son married a girl from another caste.

In 2019, the parents initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur.

He alleged that in his self acquired property at Khairabad, Sultanpur, he operated his utensil business from 1971 till 2010.

However, taking advantage of his illness, the business of the said shop was taken over by his eldest son who later started pressuring him to sell out the house.

The tribunal directed the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents’ except the shop in which he was carrying out the business. The tribunal warned him of eviction proceedings if he continued to humiliate his parents’.

On the parents’ appeal, District Magistrate Sultanpur set aside the order passed by the SDM and directed for the eviction of the oldest son.

The eldest son moved the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the eviction order but did not interfere with the other directions passed by the tribunal.

The apex court said it is not correct to allege that the property exclusively belongs to Kallu Mal and that the eldest son has no legal right to reside therein.

The bench said it is apparent that father had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots, one in favour of his son-in-law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh, and he had gifted one shop to the younger daughter. “Therefore, ex-facie he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it,” the court said.

The court found no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the order the eldest son has in any way humiliated his parents especially the appellant (mother) or has interfered with her living.