Mumbai, August 8, 2026: An Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder cannot be denied protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, merely because she is not an Indian citizen, the Bombay High Court has held, emphasising that the law must be interpreted in a manner that advances the welfare of parents and senior citizens.
Justice N.J. Jamadar made the observation while holding that a parent need not be an Indian citizen or even above 60 years of age to claim the benefits available under the Act.
Daughter-In-Law Challenged Eviction Order
The judgment came on a petition filed by a woman, the daughter-in-law of the OCI cardholder, challenging an order directing her to vacate the latter’s Juhu flat. The OCI cardholder is a New Zealand citizen who currently resides in Australia.
She had approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking possession of the flat, which she had purchased in 1987 from her own earnings. She had permitted her son and daughter-in-law to reside there after their marriage.
The Maintenance Tribunal initially declined to order the daughter-in-law’s eviction, but the Appellate Tribunal subsequently directed her to vacate the premises.
The daughter-in-law challenged the appellate order, arguing that the OCI cardholder was not an Indian citizen and therefore did not qualify as a “senior citizen” under Section 2(h) of the Act. She also claimed protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, contending that the flat was her matrimonial home and a shared household.
Court Distinguishes ‘Parent’ From ‘Senior Citizen’
The High Court drew a distinction between the definitions of “senior citizen” and “parent” under the Senior Citizens Act. While Section 2(h) refers to an Indian citizen aged 60 years or above, Section 2(d), which defines “parent”, contains no such citizenship or age requirement.
“To get the benefit of the ameliorative provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a person who is a ‘parent’ need not be a ‘senior citizen’,” Justice Jamadar said.
The court also rejected the argument that a parent seeking only eviction, without claiming maintenance, cannot approach the tribunal. It held that such an application is maintainable where a parent alleges unlawful deprivation of property or seeks possession in order to live a “normal, dignified and peaceful life”.
Domestic Violence Rights Also Considered
At the same time, the court held that the rights of a senior citizen cannot be considered in isolation where a daughter-in-law asserts a right of residence in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act. The two statutes, the court said, must be harmoniously construed.
In the present case, the High Court found that the daughter-in-law had been residing in the Juhu flat since her marriage in 2004 and that there was a factual basis to treat it as a shared household. It therefore declined to order her eviction.
Also Watch:
The court set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s eviction order and restored the Maintenance Tribunal’s earlier order. It directed that the OCI cardholder and her family members should have unrestricted rights to reside in the flat and restrained the daughter-in-law from doing anything that would prevent her from living there peacefully and with dignity.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
