Supreme Court Upholds Adult Children’s Right to Independent Living

Title: "Supreme Court rules that Adult Children Can't be Forced to Live with Parents Against Their Will"

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that adult children cannot be forced to live with their parents against their will. The decision came in the context of a petition filed by a 27-year-old woman, who challenged a lower court order directing her to live with her aged parents.

The petitioner, who was working in New Zealand and had been staying away from her parents for several years, sought relief from the court after she was informed that her parents had filed a case against her. The lower court had directed her to live with her parents until the case was resolved. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The two-judge bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, which heard the case, held that the order passed by the lower court was not sustainable. The bench ruled that adult children have the right to stay away from their parents if they do not wish to live with them, and this cannot be a ground for legal action against them.

The court elaborated that while parents have a right to be cared for by their children, this operates only in cases where the children are both able and willing to take care of their parents. It cannot be extended to situations where adult children are forced to stay with their parents against their will.

The bench noted that in the instant case, the petitioner had been living independently for several years and was settled in New Zealand for work purposes. She had already given an undertaking to provide her parents with financial assistance, if required. In light of these circumstances, the court held that the lower court's order directing her to live with her parents was not in accordance with law.

The court also emphasized that forcing adult children to live with their parents could lead to serious repercussions in cases of strained relationships or domestic violence. Hence, it is not justifiable to pass such orders without taking into account the wishes of the adult child.

Moreover, the court observed that in this particular case, the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty would be violated if she were to be compelled to live with her parents. The bench clarified that this right is equally applicable to adult children, and cannot be overshadowed by any traditional notion of obligation towards parents.

In light of these reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court's order and allowed the petitioner to continue living independently. This ruling by the apex court is likely to have a significant impact on several similar cases where adult children are compelled to live with their parents against their will.

The court's decision is in line with the changing societal norms and recognizes the individual's right to choose their own path in life. It also reiterates that the state cannot interfere with personal choices and relationships of adult individuals. It is a significant step towards strengthening the concept of consent and personal autonomy in familial relationships.

In conclusion, this landmark ruling recognizes the rights of adult children and reinforces the principle that personal autonomy cannot be compromised in the name of parental authority. It provides much-needed clarity on the legal obligations of adult children towards their parents, and sets a precedent for future cases of a similar nature.