The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that the notion of family in India seems to be eroding with society moving towards a “one person, one family” model.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti made the observation while hearing a plea filed by 68-year-old Samtola Devi seeking the eviction of her eldest son, Krishna Kumar, from their family home in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

The top court also remarked that while the nation upholds the philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – the belief that the world is one family – this principle is increasingly difficult to uphold even within immediate families today.

The case revolved around a long-standing property dispute between Samtola Devi, her deceased husband Kallu Mal, and their eldest son Krishna Kumar. The couple owned a house with three shops and had three sons and two daughters. However, family disputes emerged, particularly with Krishna Kumar, who took over the family business. The dispute has been ongoing since 2014.

In 2014, Kallu Mal made an application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur accusing Krishna Kumar of abuse and sought legal intervention.

In 2017, the couple approached a family court for maintenance, which was granted at ?8,000 per month, to be shared equally between Krishna Kumar and another son, Janardan.

In 2019, the parents moved for Krishna Kumar’s eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. While the maintenance tribunal restricted Krishna Kumar from encroaching on the house without parental permission, it did not order eviction.

The parents appealed, and the appellate tribunal ruled in favour of eviction, but the High Court later reversed this decision. After Kallu Mal’s death, Samtola Devi continued the legal battle, eventually approaching the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, dismissing Devi’s plea and observing that the Senior Citizens Act does not explicitly provide for eviction proceedings.

The bench stated that if Kallu Mal had transferred ownership of the house to his daughters and son-in-law, then neither he nor his wife had the right to evict Krishna Kumar. The court also found no evidence that Krishna Kumar had humiliated or mistreated his parents. As a son, Krishna Kumar holds an implied license to reside in the house, and eviction would not be a prudent decision. The SC also said the maintenance tribunal’s decision to allow Krishna Kumar to stay with restrictions was justified.

 “In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the extreme step for 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,” the top court said.