Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court pointed out that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person.
Supreme Court reiterated that it is a social obligation for both sons and daughters to maintain their parents when they are unable to do so.
Applicant along with other people, threatened the informant, a senior citizen aged about 71 years, to throw him off the train and kill him and even hit the informant on face, eyes, and stomach.
Mere fact that the mother may be physically unwell, does not compel her to accept the presence of those who, in her perception, have contributed to her distress. The Court cannot impose on the senior citizen a forced living arrangement against her will, especially when it has been found to be a source of her suffering.
The Court observed that MCD is a big Government Department, and this civic agency must be handling innumerable matters but that does not give any automatic handle to MCD to file written statement as per its own whims and fancies.
The Delhi High Court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government, State (NCT of Delhi).
Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules outlines a procedure for eviction from a senior citizen’s property and sub-rule (iv) allows the authority to conduct summary proceedings and order eviction of a son, daughter, or legal heir for non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
The DM as an appellate authority can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his ‘need’, and the right to eviction is the last step.
Delhi High Court observed that the present case is not a case of casus omissus and the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot make the provision what the Legislature did not intend it to be.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by the son challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Eastern
Supreme Court: In an appeal directed against the judgment and order upholding conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
“One can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in the evening of their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organizers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home.”
In 2013, Gujarat High Court addressed a case wherein a son audaciously suggested that his parents should move to and stay in
Bombay High Court: G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an ordeal of a senior citizen who would be soon in her nineties and was
“No FIR under SC&ST Act (can) be registered at the instance of third party, unless an opinion is sought from the District Attorney (Legal) that the complainant falls within the definition of victim as per SC&ST Act.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Expressing that when the children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of P.N. Prakash and R. Pongiappan, JJ., addressed a contempt petition filed under Section 10 of
Supreme Court: In a case relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.
Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has directed that all old age people who are eligible
Kerala High Court: A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. dismissed a petition challenging the order of Appellate Authority under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents