New Delhi: History repeats itself, said the Delhi High Court today as it warned a man, who and his brother are facing allegations of mistreating their parents.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra told the brothers that the way they treated their parents, the same treatment could be meted out to them by their kids.
"History repeats itself. I am not making comments on the merit of the case, but that is the reality of life. What you will do to your parents, you will get the same back from your children," the bench said.
"Why don't you create your own world and allow your parents to live peacefully in their old age," it added.
The court's oral observation came during the hearing of a plea by one of the two brothers, challenging a single judge ruling that the parents can evict from the house their adult children who abuse them.
The bench has listed the appeal for consideration on September 19, the next date of hearing in the matter.
It also asked the authorities to produce before it the records of the Maintenance Tribunal which had ordered that the two brothers be evicted from the premises where they were living with their ailing parents.
The single judge had on March 15 held that as long as parents have the legal possession of the property, be it self- acquired or inherited, they can evict their abusive adult children.
The ruling had come on the appeal of the two brothers, one of them an alcoholic policeman who had challenged an October 2015 order of the Maintenance Tribunal.
In the appeal against the single judge's decision, it has been contended that the senior citizens neither owned the premises, nor were they the tenants there. The petition has also sought that no third-party interest be created in the property.
The government had earlier told the high court that it has implemented the single judge's order by evicting the brothers from the residence.
The March 15 ruling was a major improvement in a 2007 law which had left it to the state governments to frame rules to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
In their plea before the single judge, the brothers had contended that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the eviction order as there was no claim for maintenance and the relief was granted only on the allegations of physical assault, maltreatment, harassment and forcible ouster of their parents from the property.
The alcoholic son, who was dismissed from service by the Delhi Police, had said that even in cases of parental abuse, no eviction order could be passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The single judge, however, had interpreted the provisions of the Act to say that the "Senior Citizens' Maintenance tribunal can issue eviction order to ensure that senior citizens live peacefully in their house without being forced to accommodate a son who physically assaults and mentally harasses them or threatens to dispossess them".
The judge had also directed the Delhi government to amend its rules and formulate an action plan to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
Noting that the "Act, 2007, amongst other remedies, provides for eviction of adult children in cases of parental abuse, like in the present case", the judge had asked the SDM concerned and SHO, police station Civil Lines, to ensure that the sons were evicted from the house immediately.
