Son not expected to brand his father "swindler" or claim parents have lost mental balance: Bombay High Court

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that in a 'conservative" Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his father a "swindler" or claim that his parents have lost mental balance [Namdeo Bangde vs State of Maharashtra]..Single-judge Justice Rohit Deo accordingly upheld the decision of a Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal, which ordered the eviction of one Namdeo Bangde from the self-acquired house of his father Babuji (75 years) and mother Sushilabai (65 years)."I note that there is no dispute that the petitioners are residing in the self-acquired property of their parents. While there is a general denial of the averments in the application preferred under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act), the language used and the grave allegations levelled against the aged parents is, in my considered view, a reason to hold that the safety and security of the parents shall be in jeopardy unless the petitioners are evicted," the judge held.The judge further observed that the son had been accusing his father of misappropriating money by swindling the government."In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a ‘swindler’ or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance. The allegations that the aged parents have been physically assaulted, that the other son was also assaulted and that visitors are prevented from entering the residential house, are not specifically traversed. I have no doubt in my mind, that the emotional and physical well being of the aged parents cannot be ensured unless the petitioners vacate their parents' self-acquired residential house," Justice Deo said in the order passed on April 4..The parents had moved the Tribunal under Section 5 of the Act highlighting the harassment meted out to them by Namdeo and his wife Geeta. They pointed out that their son and daughter-in-law have been mentally and physically harassing them.Their plea before the Tribunal further pointed out that their children have forcibly taken possession of part of their house, and they were planning to rent out the same to someone so that their medical expenses can be looked after as Babuji is a heart patient.On the other hand, the son argued that the father isn't a heart patient. He questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for ordering his eviction while dealing with a plea filed under Section 5 of the Act.Considering the submissions, the bench said, "The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act cannot be converted into a suit for eviction, is not wrong as a proposition of law. However, if the senior citizens are harassed and have genuine reasons to perceive that their emotional and or physical well being and security is under threat, I do not see any reason to hold that the Tribunal has no power to direct eviction. I have no hesitation in observing that order of eviction is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the physical and emotional health and safety of the parents," the Court said.It, therefore, dismissed the petition..Advocate Lubesh Meshram appeared for the son and daughter-in-law, advocate P S Wathore appeared for the old parents while the State was represented by additional government pleader NR Rode..[Read Judgment]