The daughter-in-law's entitlement to reside at her matrimonial house and the mala fide nature of the petitioners' application under the Act of 2007 influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners seek implementation of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal directed that, the daughter-in-law of the petitioners should vacate the residence of the petitioners.

3. State and the private respondents are represented.

4. The facts are startling. The daughter-in-law instituted a proceeding inter alia under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and her husband first in point of time. The investigation with regard thereto stands concluded. Charge sheets have been filed. The petitioners are on bail. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners have applied under the Act of 2007. Significantly, the proceedings under the Act of 2007 culminated into an order of dismissal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Appeal was carried by the petitioners. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the house undertaken.

5. The daughter-in-law of the petitioners instituted a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court is informed that, such proceedings are pending. The Court is also informed that the daughter-in-law receives as alimony of Rs.8,000/- per month. The proceedings under the Act of 2005 is yet to attain finality. The daughter-in-law is entitled to reside at her matrimonial house. As noted above, in the facts of the present case, the proceeding under Section 498A was first in point of time. In order to defeat the claim of the daughter-in-law in such proceeding as also to prejudice the proceeding under the Act of 2005, the proceeding of the Act of 2007 instituted. The petitioners approach under the Act of 2007 is actuated by mala fides and is designed to deny a daughter-in-law her rightful residence at her matrimonial place. Admittedly, at the time of her marriage, one of the matrimonial residence was the resident of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that, the residence is a self acquired property. It is a two-storied building with the first floor being let out to tenants. The first floor is occupied by the petitioners.

6. Since the daughter-in-law is entitled to and is willing to reside at her matrimonial house, it would be appropriate to direct the police authorities to ensure that, the daughter-in-law is in a position to utilize one of the bed rooms of such premises of her choice along with all attending facilities of such room at such premises forthwith. The concerned Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station will act on the basis of this order and the daughter in law in actual physical possession thereof. He will make an inventory of the moveable available in such room. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station will make an inventory of the tenants of the premises. He will inform such tenants that they will pay the rent in respect of their tenancy to the daughter-in-law commencing from the month of March 2019. Payment of rent to the daughter-in-law will be in complete discharge of the liability of the tenants to pay rent to the landlord. This mechanism is put in place in order to provide adequate financial assistance to the lady who is now being sought to be penalized by the son of the petitioners in collusion with the petitioners. The police will treat this writ petition as another incident of torture on the daughter-in-law and if necessary will undertake further investigation. If necessary, the police are at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail, if they are of the view that custodial interrogation is required. The impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for less implemented. It emanated out a proceeding which is mala fide, instituted with an oblique motive and designed to defeat the due process of law. The petitioners are acting in tandem with their son to deny the rightful entitlements of