Parents go to police against children only as a last resort: HC

HC dismisses son’s plea against eviction; says footage of son assaulting elderly father ‘distressing’

Mumbai:  Parents do not approach the police against their children unless they have been pushed to the brink, the Bombay High Court observed last week while dismissing a petition filed by a 53-year-old man against his eviction from his father’s home.

Parents go to police against children only as a last resort: HC

Seeking the reversal of the eviction, the son’s lawyer argued that in 13 years the police had registered only two non-cognisable (NC) reports against the son based on his father’s complaints. A single-judge bench of Justice N J Jamadar observed, “Generally parents do not take recourse to the law enforcement agencies against their children. It is only after all the options are exhausted that, by way of last resort, the matter is reported to the police.” The judge said that in this particular case, things had evidently come to such a pass that “the senior citizen was required to approach the law enforcement agencies on more than one occasion to protect his life and limb.” The court also said that CCTV footage of the son physically assaulting his 83-year-old father was “distressing” and his conduct “reprehensible”.

The elderly man had lodged an NC at the Vakola police station twice - first in July 2022 after his son allegedly threatened and assaulted him for not selling his property, and in February 2023 when his son allegedly came home drunk and assaulted his father.

The son had moved the high court in 2025 after the tribunal under Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007 ordered his eviction from his father’s house in Santacruz (East) in September 2024 and the appellate tribunal upheld the order in December 2024. The octogenarian had alleged that his son, the eldest of his three children, had an “abusive and aggressive temperament”. The court was told that the son was employed “at a very senior position in a reputed company and earns sumptuous remuneration and owns multiple immovable properties” but continued to live with his parents and coerced his father into selling his house.

The son had, however, argued that the legislation for the protection of senior citizens was weaponised by his brother and sister-in-law to seek vengeance. He alleged that they had “manipulated, fabricated, and concocted false stories and compelled the senior citizen to lodge a false complaint” against him.

Justice Jamadar, however, said in his order of August 27, “Indeed, there might have been disputes among the siblings, stemming out of the rival claims over properties. However, that does not justify the conduct attributed to the petitioner (son). The conduct of the petitioner, as borne out by the record, is reprehensible. The behaviour of the petitioner was such that the right of the senior citizen to live a normal peaceful and dignified life was seriously jeopardised.”