Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Ujjal Bhuyan and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
Ritika Prashant Jasani – Petitioner
versus
Anjana Niranjan Jasani and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2631 of 2021
Decided on 13.8.2021
(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 4 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(s) – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law from shared household – Petitioner is daughter-in-law – While mother-in-law seeks eviction of daughter-in-law from flat on strength of 2007 Act, daughter-in-law seeks to enforce her right to reside in shared household on strength of 2005 Act – Tribunal under 2007 Act may have authority to order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure maintenance and protection of senior citizen or parent – Eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection – However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to competing claims in dispute – Tribunal is mandated upon receipt of an application for maintenance to provide opportunity of hearing to both parties and to hold enquiry for determining amount of maintenance – Though procedure contemplated under 2007 Act is summary in nature nonetheless Tribunal is required to find out as to whether flat in question belongs exclusively to respondent No.1 or it is an ancestral property where petitioner has also a right to ownership and / or residence through her husband – Tribunal is also required to deal with contention of petitioner that flat in question is her shared household wherefrom she cannot be evicted – Both parents / senior citizens and daughter-in-law are vulnerable groups in Indian context and for protection of their rights 2005 Act and 2007 Act have been enacted – Impugned order quashed and set aside and matter back to Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. (Paras 14, 23, 26 and 27)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(s) – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 3 and 4 – Right to reside in shared household – Provisions of both Acts are required to be reconciled and read harmoniously – Definition of shared household in Section 2(s) of 2005 Act is an exhaustive one – Provisions of Section 3 of 2007 Act giving it overriding force and effect would not by itself be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household. (Paras 14, 19 and 19.4)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.—Heard Mr. Kishor Maru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoshak Daver, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. Both petitioner and respondent No.1 were also present in person during the hearing.
3. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Deputy District Collector, Mumbai City acting as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens.
4. Respondent No.1 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner alongwith her husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani and minor daughter Samaira are residing in the flat bearing flat No.81A, Acropolis, 3 Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai (henceforth referred to as “the flat” hereinafter) along with respondent No.1. The said flat originally belonged to Mr. Anandlal Jasani, who during his lifetime made nomination in respect of the said flat whereby twenty percent share of the flat was granted in favour of petitioner’s husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani.
5. Mr. Anandlal Jasani died in the year 2007 whereafter his son Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani, Mrs. Anjana Niranjan Jasani and Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani alongwith other legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Anandlal Jasani were entitled to equal rights and shares in the said flat.
6. Be it stated that Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani is the father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. father of Mr. Prashant Jasani and husband of Anjana Niranjan Jasani i.e. respondent No.1.
7. Since her marriage with Mr. Prashant Jasani, petitioner has been residing in the said flat alongwith respondent No.1 and the late Niranjan Anandlal Jasani till his death. Be it stated that Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani died intestate at Mumbai on 11.04.2016. Therefore, petitioner claims the said flat to be her matrimonial home as well as her shared household. Petitioner, her husband, daughter and respondent No.1 are residing in the said flat.
8. It is stated that petitioner and respondent No.1 earns income mainly from the following sources: -
1. Rent from the office premises at Arun Chamber, Tardeo for Rs.35,000/- per month;
2. From the interest accrued on the shares which would be about Rs.30,000/- per month;
3. Respondent No.1 is carrying on catering business on a limited scale earning therefrom Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.
8.1. Petitioner has stated that her husband Prashant Niranjan Jasani is suffering from mental illness and depression because of which he requires regular treatment and counseling. He is not in a position to contribute to the earnings of the family.
8.2. Allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 wants to sell the said flat and thereafter to retain the sale consideration to herself so as to enable her to lead an affluent lifestyle. Petitioner and her husband are opposed to selling of the flat. Petitioner states that the said flat is not self acquired property of respondent No.1; rather it is an ancestral property of the family of the petitioner’s husband wherein petitioner’s husband, petitioner and their minor daughter have equal right, title and interest.
8.3. Respondent No.1 with an oblique motive to oust the petitioner, her husband and minor daughter from the flat filed a complaint dated 26.04.2019 before the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (briefly “the Tribunal” hereafter) for eviction of the petitioner and her husband Prashant Jasani from the flat so as to allow her to reside in the flat all by herself.
8.4. Petitioner filed her objection dated 08.12.2020. She denied all the allegations levelled against her and her husband by respondent No.1. According to her, respondent No.1 has high expectations from life and she has always loved luxury. She has very rich friends and her daughters are also extremely rich. Respondent No.1 looks down upon the petitioner and her husband as they do not have high income and are not upto her standard. Af
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
