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

2018 Supreme(Del) 3294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajendra Menon and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ.
Darshna - Appellant
Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. - Respondent
LPA 537/2018
Decided On: 03-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : : Rahul Sagar Sahay and Siddharth Bangar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC and Zahid Hanief, Adv.

The judgment established the broad interpretation of welfare legislation, emphasizing the expansive meaning of legal provisions to achieve the mandate of the Act and protect the rights of senior citizens.

Headnote:

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Eviction - Section 23, Section 4, Rule 22(3)(1)(i) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, the interpretation of Section 23, and the application of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) in the context of eviction of a daughter-in-law from ancestral property. The court emphasized the welfare legislation and the need for a liberal interpretation to achieve the mandate of the Act. The judgment highlighted the broad interpretation of the term 'transfer' to include possession of property and the expansive meaning of 'legal heirs' to encompass the families of daughters/sons of senior citizens. The court upheld the order of eviction, considering the deteriorated relationships and the absence of right, title, and interest of the daughter-in-law in the premises.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a daughter-in-law, challenged the order of eviction issued by the District Magistrate, which directed her to vacate the ancestral property occupied by her and hand over possession to the respondent. The appellant argued that the application for eviction was not maintainable as the property was ancestral and the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act did not apply to daughter-in-laws.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of eviction was justified based on the serious allegations of misbehavior and physical assault by the appellant towards the senior citizens. The court upheld the application of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2017, allowing eviction from ancestral property on grounds of non-maintenance and ill-treatment. The court emphasized the broad interpretation of the term 'transfer' and the expansive meaning of 'legal heirs' to include daughter-in-laws.

Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the eviction application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, the interpretation of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) in the context of ancestral property, and the rights of daughter-in-laws in such cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the broad interpretation of the Act and Rules, emphasizing the welfare legislation's objective to protect the life and property of senior citizens. The court upheld the eviction order considering the deteriorated relationships and the absence of right, title, and interest of the daughter-in-law in the premises.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of eviction, emphasizing the need to allow senior citizens/parents to live in peace and tranquility.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 18th July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6592/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 8th June, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate whereby the appellant has been directed to evict the first floor of house No. 2777/21, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 occupied by her and to hand over the physical possession of the property to respondent no. 2, namely Dhani Ram.

2. The facts as noted from the record are, the appellant is the daughter-in-law of Dhani Ram and is residing in the premises along with Dhani Ram and his wife. It is her case that she occupies only one room of the said property. It is noted that there are matrimonial disputes between Darshna and her husband. Further there are also disputes between Darshna and her in-laws, i.e. Dhani Ram and his wife. Darshna has instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in laws. Darshna and her husband had also instituted divorce proceeding before the Principal Judge, Family Court on the ground of cruelty. It is also a conceded position that Darshna and her husband are now separated and are not living along with Dhani Ram and his wife in the aforesaid property for the last several months. Darshna has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is stated to be pending. The proceedings by Darshna alleging offences under Section 498A/406 & 34 IPC are pending against her husband and parents in law. It is also noted that Dhani Ram has also filed a Civil Suit against the appellant Darshna for permanent and mandatory injunction, which is pending before Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Dhani Ram has also filed an application before the District Magistrate seeking eviction of his son and appellant from the premises. The said proceedings were decided by the District Magistrate whereby a direction has been given, which has already been reflected above.

3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge as canvassed by her counsel was that petition filed by Dhani Ram for eviction was not maintainable as Dhani Ram had not sought for any relief of maintenance under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2007) and that getting rent from the shops on ground floor of the property, he did not require any maintenance and as such the claim for eviction without maintenance was not maintainable.

4. One of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was also that the provisions of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules as amended in the year 2016 only enable senior citizen to evict his son, daughter or legal heir from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the daughter-in-law did not fall within the scope of the said Rules. Therefore, the application for evicting the appellant/his daughter-in-law is not maintainable. Further it was stated that the property in question was an ancestral property of Dhani Ram and therefore, he could not maintain the application for eviction under the Act or the Rules.

5. It is noted from the impugned order that serious allegations have been made against the appellant on her misbehavior and physically assaulting Dhani Ram and his wife.. The learned Single Judge has also noted the fact that the District Magistrate had called for a report from the SDM, Karol Bagh and who on enquiries confirmed that Darshna used to fight with her in-laws; she used to spit on them and also used filthy language. Learned Single Judge accepted the allegations made by Dhani Ram and the fact that Dhani Ram and Darshna cannot live together in the same premises. In fact, Dhani Ram placed rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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