“Right to Residence Is Not Just Shelter, But Dignity”: Madras HC Upholds Senior Citizen’s Claim Over Matrimonial Home, Slams Son’s Occupation as Forcible
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed a writ appeal filed against a prior writ court order, thereby upholding the right of a senior citizen to reside peacefully in her matrimonial home. The Bench directed the authorities to ensure the senior citizen's right to residence and dignity, notwithstanding her financial independence.
The appeal arose from a writ petition wherein the fourth respondent, a senior citizen, sought protection and reinstatement of residence in her matrimonial property from which she was allegedly evicted by her son. The writ court, after examining the facts, had granted the relief sought, which was subsequently challenged by the son in the present writ appeal.
The fourth respondent, Malarkodi, filed a complaint on 18 July 2023 before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Central Chennai, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. She stated that she was driven out of her matrimonial home by her son, the appellant, K. Gopinathan. The complaint noted that the property in question was registered in her name, and she had resided in the Anna Nagar house for several years along with her deceased husband.
The senior citizen alleged that her son, after divorcing his wife, returned to live with her and subsequently remarried the same woman and moved to a different residence. Despite this, he continued to claim rights over the Anna Nagar property and began to harass her, both mentally and physically. Malarkodi further submitted that the family’s Karur property was sold for Rs.5 Crores and the proceeds were divided equally into four parts among her and her three children. Despite receiving his share, the appellant insisted on the entire sale amount and started causing distress to the family.
She further alleged that the appellant sold a car registered in her deceased husband's name without her consent and even filed complaints with the local police station which were not acted upon. An FIR under various IPC sections was later filed but subsequently closed as a mistake of facts without notice to her.
In his defence, the appellant contended that the Karur property was sold for Rs.15 Crores, of which only Rs.5 Crores were accounted for by the senior citizen. He alleged that the remaining amount was distributed to her daughters. He also claimed that his mother was under the influence of her daughters and reiterated his willingness to support her financially and accommodate her on the ground floor of the Anna Nagar property.
The RDO initially held that as the senior citizen received substantial rental income from other properties, maintenance under the Act was not applicable. However, he directed the appellant to cover medical expenses and provide necessary amenities. On appeal, the District Collector affirmed the RDO's order but additionally directed that the senior citizen be permitted to live in her Anna Nagar residence.
Unhappy with this, the appellant moved the writ court challenging the District Collector’s order. The writ court examined the facts and granted interim protection to the senior citizen, which was confirmed in the final order. The writ appeal was then filed challenging the same.
The Division Bench considered the entire scheme and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It recorded that:
"Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be read in isolation, instead, the entire Act must be considered in the context of its objectives and the intention of the Parliament is to be taken into consideration for granting relief and to protect the life of the senior citizen."
The Court added:
"Maintenance under the Senior Citizens Act encompasses not only financial support, but also a decent life, dignity, medical attendance, love, care and basic amenities, which all are to be protected."
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (A.I.R. 1981 746), the Bench stated:
"The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter... it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self."
Addressing the appellant’s submission that the senior citizen was financially self-sufficient, the Court stated:
"Merely because a senior citizen earns certain rental income, a complaint seeking the right to residence cannot be rejected."
Further, the Court referred to Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which obligates the District Collector to ensure the life and property of senior citizens are protected.
On the structural issues raised—specifically, the duplex nature of the property with no external stairs—the Court observed:
"The parties state that altering the stairs is not feasible at this point of time. Therefore, the Court's endeavour to resolve the issues failed."
Nonetheless, the Court found that the senior citizen owned 50% of the property along with 1/4th share of her deceased husband and held:
"The senior citizen's right to live in the matrimonial home should not be denied until the partition is effected through a Civil Court of Law."
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and issued the following direction:
"The District Collector is directed to ensure that the senior citizen is allowed to occupy the house at AL-155, A1 Block 2nd Street, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040 and her peaceful living in the house is protected with security and dignity."
In light of the above directions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. As a result, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mrs. Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel
For Respondents: Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. C. Vidhusan
Case Title: K. Gopinathan vs. The District Collector, Chennai & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:851
Case Number: W.A. No. 2967 of 2024
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar
[Read/Download order]
