SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Balasaheb Patil, S/o. Late. Babagouda Patil - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Soni @ sonia patil w/o. Anilkumar patil - Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5479 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4818 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION NO.7470 OF 2021 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.7539 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 12-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE

IMPORTANT POINT
The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 prevails over the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in eviction matters, ensuring the protection of senior citizens' rights while balancing the rights of women.

Headnote:

Eviction - Family Dispute - Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emphasizing the precedence of the former in eviction matters involving senior citizens, while ensuring the rights of women under the latter are not unjustly negated.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over a residential property between a father and son, with the father claiming it as his self-acquired property and the son asserting it as joint family property. The father sought eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, while the daughter-in-law invoked the Domestic Violence Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ruling that the father, as a senior citizen, had the right to evict his son and daughter-in-law, and that the daughter-in-law's claims under the Domestic Violence Act were not maintainable.

Issues: Whether the eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act can be challenged by the daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, and the maintainability of petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC against proceedings under the D.V. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has overriding authority in eviction matters involving senior citizens, and that the rights under the Domestic Violence Act do not negate this authority.

Result: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the eviction order and upheld the father's right to evict his son and daughter-in-law.

ORDER :

In the matter at hand, various legal provisions and acts are invoked creating a complex web of familial and legal disputes surrounding the residential property No.73 in Chandra Layout, Bengaluru. The legal saga surrounding the residential property in Chandra Layout, Bengaluru unfolds a tangled narrative of familial discord between a father and a son. These petitions are filed by father, mother and daughters on one side and the daughter-in-law on the other side. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull the family tree produced in the partition suit filed by son (Anilkumar) against his father, uncle, mother and sisters in O.S.No.41/2019. The family tree is as under:

2. The father Balasaheb Patil, is a Retired Police Officer and therefore, claims that the residential house at Chandra Layout, Bengaluru is his self acquired property. The father asserts that while he was serving as Police Officer, he applied for allotment of plot to the BDA and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. At its core lies a fundamental disagreement between Balasaheb Patil and his son, Anilkumar, regarding the nature of the property. The family owns several agricultural lands, commercial properties and sites at Bijapur and other cities. There appears to be dispute after Balasaheb Patil asserted that the residential house at Chandra Layout is his self acquired property whereas his son Anilkumar contends it to be a joint family ancestral property. This foundational dispute has led to a series of legal battles between father and son that delve into complex intersections of family dynamics and legal statutes.

3. The father Balasaheb Patil lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 30.04.2019 requesting the police officer to take suitable action against his son and deliver possession of second and third floors of the residential house to enable him to lead a peaceful life. This action of father led son to institute a partition suit in O.S.No.41/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sindgi. It seems on receipt of summons, father (Balasaheb Patil) filed a petition in Misc. Petition No.69/2019-20 against son under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Senior Citizens Act, 2007”) requesting to evict the son and his family members from the schedule property and to handover physical possession of second floor and third floor. Simultaneously, Anilkumar’s wife namely Sony @ Sonia Patil initiates legal action under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act, 2005) alleging harassment and seeking remedies against in-laws and sisters-in-law. The miscellaneous petition filed by father was allowed by the authority and Anilkumar (son) was directed to handover vacant possession to the father.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 5 and 23 of D.V.Act, 2005 calling upon the son to handover vacant possession, two petitions are filed before this Court. Anilkumar (son) assailing the eviction order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2021 has filed a petition in W.P.No.7470/2021. The daughter-in-law and children though not party before the Tribunal have also questioned the eviction order of the Tribunal in W.P.No.7539/2021. The proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 is also challenged by the in-laws in two petitions. Balasaheb Patil’s brother namely Basanagouda Patil assailing the proceedings initiated by daughter-in-law under the provisions of the D.V.Act, 2005 has filed Crl.P.No.4818/2020. Balasaheb Patil and his wife are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 by filing Crl.P.No.5479/2020 (D.V.Act, 2005).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at Chandra Layout, Bengaluru, is self a

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top