Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Smt. Darshna - Petitioner
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 6592 of 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niraj Choudhary, Mr. A.S. Sharma
The judgment emphasizes the need for a liberal and meaningful interpretation of welfare legislation, particularly in cases involving the protection of senior citizens and the entitlement to maintenance.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Eviction of Daughter-in-law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Cr.P.C, IPC, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 125 of Cr.P.C, Section 498A, 406, 34 of IPC, Section 22(3)(1) of the Act, Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, Section 22(2) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition filed by Darshna challenging an order for her eviction from the premises occupied by her and her in-laws. The court considered the allegations of ill-treatment and violence between Darshna and her in-laws, as well as the legal provisions related to maintenance and eviction under the relevant acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Darshna had ill-treated her in-laws, as evidenced by witness statements, CCTV footage, and medical records. It also upheld the maintainability of the eviction application under the relevant rules and provisions, emphasizing the need for protection of senior citizens.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of ill-treatment, the maintainability of the eviction application, and the entitlement to maintenance for Darshna.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of ill-treatment, the interpretation of the relevant rules and provisions, and the overarching objective of protecting the life and property of senior citizens.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the implementation of the eviction order was stayed for eight weeks to allow Darshna to seek enhancement of maintenance through the Family Court.
CM No.28045/2018
1. The petitioner (also referred to as Darshna) has filed the present application, inter alia, praying that the petition be heard at an early date and in the meantime the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, in case No. 6/2018 captioned Sh. Dhani Ram v. Smt. Darshna and Ors., be stayed.
2. The application is allowed to the extent that the petition is taken up for hearing.
W.P.(C) 6592/2018
3. Darshna has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 08.06.2018 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the District Magistrate, whereby she has been directed to vacate the first floor of House No. 2777/21, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereafter ‘the Premises’) occupied by her and handover peaceful possession of the property to respondent no.2 (Sh. Dhani Ram).
4. Darshna is the daughter-in-law of Dhani Ram and is currently residing in the Premises along with Sh. Dhani Ram and his wife. It is stated that she occupies only one room in the said premises.
5. Concededly, there are matrimonial disputes between Darshna and her husband. Further, there are also disputes between Darshna and her in-laws (Dhani Ram and his wife). Darshna had instituted the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in-laws. Darshna’s husband has also instituted divorce proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court on the grounds of cruelty. It is not disputed that Darshna and her husband are now separated and he is not living with his parents in the Premises for the past several months. Darshna has also filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is stated to be pending. She has also filed an FIR alleging offences under Section 498A, 406, 34 of IPC against her husband and her parents-in-law. It is stated that Dhani Ram had also filed a Civil Suit (Suit No. 1003/2018 captioned “Dhani Ram v. Darshna and Ors.”) for permanent and mandatory injunction, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
6. Dhani Ram had filed an application before the District Magistrate seeking eviction of his son and Darshna from the Premises.
7. Mr. Niraj Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for Darshna has assailed the impugned order, essentially, on four grounds. First, he submitted that the proceedings for eviction are not maintainable as Dhani Ram has not sought any relief of maintenance under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereafter ‘the Act’). He submitted that Dhani Ram was receiving rent to the extent of Rs.90,000/- from the shops on the ground floor and Rs.50,000/- per month from the tenants of the second and the third floor of the premises in question. In addition, he is also receiving pension from DESU Department and, therefore, did not require any maintenance from his children.
8. Second, he submitted that the impugned order was patently erroneous as the opening paragraph of the impugned order mentioned that Sh. Dhani Ram had filed an application under Section 22(3)(2)(1) of the Act and no such provision exists. He submitted since no such provision exists, the application was not competent.
9. Third, he submitted that the provisions of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016 (hereafter ‘the Rules’), only enables a Senior citizen to evict his son and daughter or legal heirs from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. He submitted that the daughter-in-law did not fall within the scope of said Rules and, therefore, Dhani Ram’s application for evicting his daughter-in-law is not maintainable. Fourth, he submitted that the Premises in question, was ancestral property of Dhani Ram and, therefore, he could not maintain the application for eviction under the Act or the relevant rules.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
11. It is stated that Mr. Dhani R
