Karnataka HC upholds eviction of doctor from home after mother alleges harassment
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order for the eviction of a doctor and his family from a Mysuru home after his elderly mother alleged harassment and sought protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The mother approached the Assistant Commissioner in April 2023, alleging that her son and daughter-in-law were harassing her and had confined her to the house. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the doctor and his family to vacate the property in August 2024. The Deputy Commissioner upheld the order in February 2025, following which the doctor approached the High Court.
The doctor argued that he, his wife and children had been living in the Mysuru property for several decades and should not be asked to leave. He also claimed rights over the property based on a Will executed by his father.
The High Court, however, noted that both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had recorded findings regarding the alleged harassment. The court also took note of the mother's statement during the proceedings, which was recorded through video conference, in which she supported the allegations.
The court observed that the power to evict a person under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a serious one and cannot be exercised mechanically. In the present case, however, it found that the statutory authorities had sufficient grounds to exercise their protective powers under Section 22 of the Act.
The High Court also considered the doctor's employment as a Taluk Health Officer at a location around 150 km from Mysuru. It questioned the claim that he could travel between the two places every day while carrying out his official responsibilities.
Meanwhile, a separate dispute over ownership of the property is pending before a civil court. The doctor's mother has disputed the Will relied upon by him and claimed that later Wills had superseded it.
The High Court made it clear that its observations on the competing Wills and ownership rights were only prima facie and would not bind the civil court. It directed that the pending civil proceedings be decided independently and on their own merits.
According to a report by Bar and Bench, the Court further held that the existence of such a title dispute did not prevent the statutory authorities from exercising their protective jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act in the circumstances of the case, while confirming the eviction orders under challenge.
The High Court consequently dismissed the doctor's petition and upheld the eviction orders. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to implement the eviction within 60 days.
The matter before the High Court concerned the doctor's challenge to the eviction orders and did not finally determine ownership of the disputed property.
