Supreme Court warns of eroding family values

The Supreme Court has lamented the erosion of family values, emphasising that while India upholds the philosophy of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” — the idea that the entire world is one family— the country now struggles to maintain unity even within immediate families.

A bench of justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti, which was on Thursday hearing a 68-year-old woman’s plea seeking the eviction of her eldest son from their family home in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur, said the concept of a family is being eroded. It warned that society is moving toward a scenario where individuals may soon find themselves isolated within their households.

“In India, we believe in ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’—that the entire world is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain unity within our immediate families, let alone extend this philosophy to the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded, and we are on the brink of ‘one person, one family.’”

The woman and her late husband, parents of three sons and two daughters, owned a house and three shops. Over time, disputes arose between the parents and their sons, particularly the eldest, who took over the family business.

In 2014, the husband accused the eldest son of mistreatment and sought intervention from local authorities. In 2017, the couple sought maintenance, which a family court granted, directing two of the sons to contribute equally toward a monthly allowance.

By 2019, the couple initiated eviction proceedings against the eldest son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. A maintenance tribunal, while restricting him from encroaching upon any part of the house without parental permission, did not order his eviction. Dissatisfied, the parents appealed to the appellate tribunal, which ruled in favour of eviction. The Allahabad high court overturned this decision.

During the pendency of the case, the husband passed away, and the woman continued the legal battle. She approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the house was her late husband’s self-acquired property and that the eldest son had no legal right to reside there.

The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s ruling, affirming it correctly overturned the appellate tribunal’s eviction order. It noted that the Senior Citizens Act does not specifically provide for the eviction of individuals from a property owned by or belonging to a senior citizen.

It is observed that if the claim that the house was the husband’s self-acquired property is accepted, then after he transferred it to his daughters and son-in-law, neither he nor his wife retained ownership over it. Consequently, the couple would have had no legal standing to seek the eviction of anyone residing in the house.

The top court pointed out the absence of any complaint or evidence indicating that the eldest son humiliated or interfered with his mother’s right to live in the home. It said that eviction proceedings would be justified only if there was proof of mistreatment.

The Supreme Court said that ordering the eldest son’s eviction would not be prudent, as he, being a son, also holds an implied license to reside in the house. The tribunal’s decision allowing him to stay was deemed justified. “There was no necessity for the extreme step of ordering the eviction of Krishna Kumar from a portion of the house; rather, the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.”