The Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi on February 10, 2026, stepped in to protect the rights of two elderly parents locked in a bitter dispute with their son and daughter-in-law. The court set aside an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, and reaffirmed that the law meant for senior citizens must be applied in their favour, not diluted by procedural shortcuts.
Background of the Case
The case was filed by Lakhan Lal Poddar, 75, and his wife Uma Rani Poddar, 72, residents of Ramgarh. The couple told the court that the house they live in is their self-acquired property and that they were being harassed by their son Jeetendra Poddar and daughter-in-law Ritu Poddar. According to the record, Lakhan Lal had worked with Central Coalfields Limited and built the house after years of service.
In 2022, the parents approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. That authority ordered the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house, accepting the parents’ claim that they were being mistreated and could not live peacefully with them.
The children first challenged this order in a writ petition. The High Court allowed them to withdraw that case and told them to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who acts as the appellate authority. Acting on this, the Deputy Commissioner later modified the earlier eviction order in February 2024, prompting the parents to return to the High Court.
Question Before the Court
When the matter came up again, the High Court framed a narrow but important question: can a right of appeal be created or expanded by a court’s direction, especially when the law itself limits who can appeal?
The judge noted that under the 2007 Act, the right to appeal is meant for senior citizens, not for children against whom relief is granted.
Justice Rajesh Kumar also observed that earlier, both sides had agreed to let the Deputy Commissioner hear the appeal. But consent between parties, the judge made clear, cannot change the basic purpose of the law. As the bench put it, the Act exists
“for the benefit of the senior citizens,” and its spirit cannot be lost in technical adjustments.
Court’s Observations
Going into the facts, the court found two things beyond doubt: the house belongs to the parents, and relations inside the family have broken down badly. The reports before the authorities showed “serious property dispute” and deep discomfort between the two sides. The judge noted that when people “cannot co-exist in the same house,” the law must step in to protect the elderly owners who need peace and security in the last phase of life.
Referring to the aim of the 2007 Act, the court reminded that it was passed to give older people simple and speedy protection for their life and property. It also cited a recent Supreme Court ruling to underline that senior citizens should not be forced to live in hostile conditions in their own homes.
The bench added a pointed remark on inheritance. Claims over property, it said, come with duties. If children expect benefits in the future, they must first ensure a safe and respectful environment for their parents today.
Decision
In the end, the High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated February 23, 2024, did not match the aims and spirit of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The court set aside that order and disposed of the parents’ writ petition in their favour, bringing the long-running dispute back to the position that protects the elderly couple’s right to live peacefully in their own home.
Case Title:- Lakhan Lal Poddar & Anr. vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number:- W.P.(C) No. 2353 of 2024
Date of Judgment:- 10 February 2026
