The Court remarked that the man and his family residing on his 90-year-old father’s land (which he had bequeathed to his daughter) against the parents’ desires to “forcibly steal property” was harassing and violated the parents’ right to a “normal existence.” As a result, it dismissed the son’s appeal against the Maintenance Tribunal judgement ordering him to evacuate the property.
The Court held that the few official actions between the gatherings are the proof of the sensation of torment and provocation by the guardians. In addition, the property being referred to is certainly not a hereditary property on which the child can guarantee any legitimate right.
The Court held that the senior residents would in no way be blocked moving toward the Tribunal, as Section 4 of the Act would incorporate all features of upkeep. Also, the dad was not involved with the DV procedures.
The court also found that the term “property” in Article 2 (f) refers to any kind of property, movable or immovable property, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible, including any right or interest in the property. The court rejected the argument that parents cannot claim the right to the house they give to their daughter on the grounds that they have rights and interests.
The Court noticed that the son was wealthy and had his own property. Regardless, he was pestering his old parents, who simply wanted to live a tranquil life.
The court found that the son appeared to be blind when fulfilling his duty to take care of elderly and poor parents, but he dragged them into legal proceedings.