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

2018 Supreme(Chh) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
Pramod Ranjankar S/o Dharmi Mohankar - Petitioners
Versus
Arunashankar S/o Pramod Rajankar & Ors. - Respondents
CRMP No. 600 of 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey.

Headnote:

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 24 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Maintenance Act - Section 24 - Exposure and abandonment of senior citizen - Petitioners who are apparently Senior Citizens, aged about 89 years and 77 years had moved an application u/s 24 of Act, 2007 against their son and daughter-in-law and complained before police that they are subjected to torture, cruelty and misbehavior - First informtion report shows that complaint was made stating that after retirement they were living in house owned by Petitioner no.1 along-with his son and daughter in law who is Ex-Serviceman and is presently working in Indian Oil Corporation and the daughter-in-law who is working as teacher in a school - It was complained that daughter-inlaw used to conduct tuition classes in house and had forcibly encroached upon their plot and house. It is further complained that for the last 4-5 years they were isolated and driven to a corner of house and further they were made to live in captivity in their own house - Held, One can foresee the impact that when a senior citizen who is subjected to torture occupying same house and is confined in a room and are assaulted daily by respondent son and daughter-in-law then strict measures have to be followed to arrest such humiliation and assault and Court cannot follow proposition of “wait and watch” by sitting on fences - Therefore interpreting in line of aforesaid facts it is not expected that after damage is done to a senior citizen who is occupying some house with his son, law will come to rescue of petitioners through route of IPC – Therefore anxiety to stop right of abuse of senior citizen is to be made effective as otherwise it would be a symbolic collapse of legal system by not responding to request or by adhering to dummy mode by Courts - It is directed that interim application filed by petitioners seeking eviction of respondents is allowed - District Magistrate is directed to evict respondents within a further period of 30 days from date of receipt of order – Order accordingly.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been sought to be invoked by the petitioners who are father and mother of respondent No.1 and father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. The petitioners are stated to be aged about 89 years and 77 years. The order under challenge is dated 28.2.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.1/2018 by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No.1382/2017 dated 06.10.2017 is confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners who are apparently Senior Citizens, aged about 89 years and 77 years had moved an application u/s 24 of The Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007) against their son and daughter-in-law and complained before the police that they are subjected to torture, cruelty and misbehavior. The first informtion report shows that the complaint was made stating that after retirement they were living in the house owned by Petitioner no.1 along-with his son and daughter in law who is Ex-Serviceman and is presently working in Indian Oil Corporation and the daughter-in-law who is working as teacher in a school. It was complained that the daughter-inlaw used to conduct tuition classes in the house and had forcibly encroached upon their plot and house. It is further complained that for the last 4-5 years they were isolated and driven to a corner of the house and further they were made to live in captivity in their own house. It was further complained that they have endured the violent pathetic atmosphere created by the respondents and they had also sustained utmost grief, pain and suffering. It was also complained that they were treated as dead alive and they were subjected to torture, ill-treatment and misbehavior/ manhandling committed by the son and daughter in law and eventually claimed for help.

3. The JMFC took the cognizance on the basis of said complaint and found that prima facie case is made out u/s 24 of the Act, 2007. The notices were issued to respondent 1 & 2 and while such proceeding was pending an application was filed by Petitioner No.1 seeking interim relief for eviction from the house. It was prayed that virtually they have been ousted from the house owned by them and though the report was made to the police for restoring possession but it has failed. It was categorically stated that disposal of pending criminal case which is registered may take some time, therefore, the son and daughter should be ousted from the house to protect the petitioners. The said application was dismissed by the JMFC on the ground that the eviction so prayed for is of civil nature, therefore, the application cannot be entertained and the same was dismissed.

4. The said order of dismissal to get the house vacated was challenged in Criminal Revision before the IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge who by the impugned order dated 20.04.2018 dismissed the revision by holding that the ejectment of like nature is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act, 2007. It was also held that when the petition filed u/s 24 of the Act is pending, ejectment cannot be passed by the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Courts below failed to understand the spirit and object of the Act of 2007 wherein the implicit protection is provided for the senior citizen. It is further submitted that the senior citizens cannot be resorted to different courts when the Act, 2007 itself takes care of the rights of the senior citizens. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the entire dispute as has been projected is at the behest of the sister-in-law and a dispute in between respondent No.2 i.e., daughter-in-law of the petitioners and the daughter of petitioners. It

































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