Raising concerns over the "erosion" of the institution of family, the Supreme Court on Thursday said in India, people believed in the maxim vasudhaiva kutumbakam but failed to remain united even with close kin.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said the concept of "family" was being eroded leading to a one-person-one-family system.
"In India we believe in vasudhaiva kutumbakam, ie, the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of 'family' is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family," the bench said.
The top court's observation came on a plea filed by a woman seeking eviction of her eldest son from her house.
It came on record that one Kallu Mal, who passed away eventually, and his wife Samtola Devi had five children, including three sons and two daughters.
The parents did not share cordial relations with the sons and on August 2014 Kallu Mal made a complaint to the local SDM, alleging mental and physical torture by his eldest son.
In 2017, the couple initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their sons which came to be registered as a criminal case before a family court in Sultanpur.
The family court awarded Rs 4,000 a month each to the parents payable equally by the two sons by the seventh day of each calendar month.
In 2018, the eldest son married a woman from a different caste against the wishes of the parents, who initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur.
Kallu Mal alleged his house was a self-acquired property, including shops in the lower portion.
In one of the shops, he was running his business since 1971 till 2010.
However, he fell ill, and "taking advantage" of the situation, his eldest son took over the business only pressure his father later to sell the house.
The father alleged his eldest son did not take care of his daily and medical needs.
As a result, he pleaded with the tribunal to evict his son from the property.
The tribunal directed the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents except the shop in which he was carrying out the business and warned of eviction proceedings if he continued to humiliate his parents.
The parents, feeling aggrieved, moved in appeal before the appellate tribunal, which set aside the SDM's order and ordered the eldest son's eviction.
The eldest son moved the Allahabad high court which set aside the eviction order but maintained the other directions given by the tribunal.
The top court in its judgement said it couldn't be said that the father was the exclusive owner of the property, holding the son had a right or share in it.
"It is apparent that Kallu Mal had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots, one in favour of his son-in law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh. He had gifted one shop to the younger daughter," the apex court said.
The order went on, "Therefore, ex facie he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it. There is no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the aforesaid order, the son has in any way humiliated his parents especially the appellant or has interfered with her living."
The top court said there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of son from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under the senior citizens law.
© 2025