Summary of this article
The Bombay High Court held that an OCI cardholder who is a “parent” can seek remedies under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even without Indian citizenship.
The Court clarified that a parent’s protection is independent of age and citizenship.
While quashing an eviction order against a daughter-in-law, the Court restored the Tribunal’s order ensuring the OCI mother-in-law’s right to reside in her property under the Act.
The Bombay High Court has held that an overseas citizen of India (OCI) cardholder is fully entitled to legal remedies under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court emphasised that this entitlement is valid if other statutory conditions are satisfied by such an OCI. In one such case, the court noted that the Act is best served when interpreted to provide protection and welfare to parents and senior citizens.
This case reached the high court through a writ petition challenging an order of the appellate tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act. Under that order, the tribunal directed the petitioner (daughter-in-law) to vacate a flat owned by her mother-in-law, who is a citizen of New Zealand tesiding in Australia, and is also an OCI cardholder. The petitioner sought quashing of the eviction order, arguing that the respondent (mother-in-law) does not fulfil the definition of a senior citizen under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007. Besides, the petitioner also claimed that the eviction order was an unlawful interference with her rights in her matrimonial home.
The court, however, referred to the Act to clarify the specific language used in the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It pointed out that the definition of “parent” under Clause 2(d) does not require the parent to hold Indian Citizenship, whereas the definition of “senior citizen” under Clause 2(h) does.
According to a report by Live Law, the Court clarified that a person qualifying as a "parent" need not also be a “senior citizen” to access the Act’s provisions. It said that a parent is entitled to protection regardless of whether they have reached the age of 60 or hold Indian citizenship.
The court stressed that a parent’s right to protection exists irrespective of their age and citizenship status. Justice Jamadar further explained that the 2007 Act is a beneficial legislation; the judiciary must lean towards an interpretation that favours the intended beneficiaries. This ruling notably disagrees with a view previously taken by the Karnataka High Court regarding the same statutory protections.
The Bombay High Court further found that the Karnataka High Court’s previous judgment in the Dephny Gladys Lobo case also failed to account for the implications of the Citizenship Act and the 2021 Notification.
The court ruled that an OCI cardholder has a right to invoke remedies under the 2007 Act. It held that a senior citizen can only seek eviction without seeking maintenance if they have been unlawfully deprived of their property or need to live a dignified and peaceful life. While the High Court quashed the eviction order against the daughter-in-law passed by the Tribunal, it restored the maintenance tribunal’s original order to ensure the respondent’s unrestricted access and right to reside in her property.
