Karnataka High Court Validates Eviction of Doctor Accused of Harassing Elderly Mother
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the eviction of a government-employed doctor from his residence following allegations of harassment by his 82-year-old mother. The case, titled Dr. M S Mahesh v. Deputy Commissioner, involved accusations that the doctor and his spouse interfered with the mother’s peaceful living conditions.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj presided over the matter, examining the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, specifically Section 22. This section mandates the state to draft an action plan ensuring the safety and welfare of senior citizens, particularly regarding their life and property.
The court interpreted the phrase “protection of life and property of senior citizens” to encompass the right to enjoy one’s home without fear of harassment. It emphasized that statutory protection under the Act extends beyond financial maintenance, potentially including the removal of any harassment source from a senior citizen’s residence when justified by circumstances.
“For a senior citizen, it carries with it the right to live with dignity, and that includes the right to reside peacefully in her own home without fear, harassment or humiliation,” Justice Govindaraj asserted in the judgment delivered on August 6.
The court dismissed the petition from Dr. Mahesh contesting the eviction orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Mysuru Deputy Commissioner. These orders were a result of his mother’s plea for protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
More Read
In particular, the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to enforce the eviction within 60 days. This decision followed allegations by Dr. Mahesh’s mother, Subhadramma, who reported harassment and wrongful confinement in their Mysuru home, claiming she and her sister were locked in a dark room and subjected to frequent quarrels initiated by Mahesh’s wife.
The Assistant Commissioner had ordered the eviction on August 12, 2024, which was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner on February 4, 2025. Dr. Mahesh’s subsequent appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful, as the court maintained the eviction was a justified exercise of authority under Section 22 of the Act.
The court cautioned that eviction powers should not be used indiscriminately. A significant factor in upholding the eviction was Subhadramma’s direct testimony during the proceedings, corroborating claims of harassment.
More Read
Dr. Mahesh argued against the eviction, citing long-term residence and a Will purportedly granting him ownership of the property. However, the High Court rejected these arguments, noting that Mahesh’s professional obligations as a Taluk Health Officer, located 150 kilometers from Mysuru, made daily commuting implausible.
The mother contested the Will’s validity, referencing subsequent Wills that superseded the one Mahesh cited. A civil suit regarding the property’s ownership is currently pending, with the High Court clarifying that its observations on the Wills and title are preliminary and will not influence the civil court’s decisions.
Ultimately, the High Court ruled that the existing title dispute did not hinder the statutory authorities’ protective jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act, affirming the eviction orders.
Advocate KS Bheemaiah represented Dr. M S Mahesh, while Additional Government Advocate Mohammed Jaffar Shah appeared for the Deputy and Assistant Commissioners. Advocate K Murthy represented Subhadramma.
