Kochi: In a landmark judgement, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that an adult son had no right to stay in a shelter owned by their father.
Dismissing the son’s petition challenging a lower court order against him, the court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh on the son litigating against his father for legal rights of a coparcener in his father’s property.
The single bench of the court observed that it was the duty of a father to take care of his son during his childhood out of love, affection and parental obligation.
The court observed that children who become adults have no right to stay in a house bought by their father unless the father is willing to keep them.
The matter is different if the house is ancestral or used under Hindu Undivided family as his own.
The matter reached court after differences cropped up between the son and father who asked his son and daughter in law to vacate the house.
The son and his wife refused to vacate, following which the father moved a court seeking their expulsion.
The trial court ruled in favour of the father directing the son to move out of the house.
This was challenged by the son in a court which dismissed his appeal. After this he moved the Rajasthan High Court which upheld the ruling of the lower court.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes vs Erasmo Jack De Siqueira.
A further reference was made to a Bombay High Court case of Conrad Dias of Bombay vs Joseph Dias of Bombay.
Father wins against son
