Filial piety is considered intrinsic to Indian culture, and the laws and policies also reiterate this notion. However, in contemporary times, one encounters several cases of parental neglect and abuse. In 2007, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act was enacted to provide relief to aggrieved older persons by making it obligatory for children to financially support their parents. While this law acknowledges deceitful property transactions and abandonment by one’s children, it does not specify what “abuse” constitutes. We are left to decipher and interpret its meaning by reading Tribunal Orders or court judgments.
In this paper, I examine the way courts understand “abuse” and the pieces of evidence accepted by courts to prosecute children or relatives for their abusive acts. For this, I have analysed select High Court and Supreme Court judgments. While the law makes the older person dependent on the family for care, the courts mostly operate as a protective figure, proactively ensuring their safety, which might also include the eviction of children from their homes. This paper examines the legal reasonings provided by the court for taking measures against the children. The paper finds that the courts provide a wide range of interpretations of “abuse.” Amongst the cases, the most challenging situations are those where the rights of older women are weighed against the rights of their daughter-in-law when the latter invoke the domestic violence act. Abuse is a subjective concept. Sometimes care can be experienced as abuse while abusive behaviour may be normalised as care. In what ways can the victim and the nature of abuse be known? I refer to anthropological literature on abuse and violence to explain the judicial meaning(s) of abuse.
