Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Jyotsana Pawar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Daulat Ram Pawar & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 155 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2021
Domestic Violence - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court discussed the history of litigation related to the eviction of the subject premises and the rights of the appellants under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court balanced the rights under the two acts and concluded that the proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were an eyewash to defeat the orders passed by the court and the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the eviction of the subject premises. The appellants, who were staying in the premises, filed an appeal challenging the eviction order and argued their rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were an eyewash to defeat the eviction orders passed by the court and the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issues included the rights of the appellants under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the balance of rights under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the rights under the two acts and concluded that the proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were an eyewash to defeat the orders passed by the court and the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The present appeal along with pending applications was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. - Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM APPLs .15095-15096/2021 (Exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
LPA 155/2021 & CM APPLs. 15094/2021 (Stay) & 15097/2021 (Seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates)
The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been filed under Clause 10 of the letters patent seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) NO. 4469/2021 titled "Daulat Ram Pawar versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors."
1) That briefly stating facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under: -
a) That respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in this Hon'ble High Court seeking vacation of First floor of B-7, Extension 75, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029 (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Premises"). There is a long history of litigation prior to filing the writ petition.
b) Respondent No. 1 had filed an eviction petition against his son (Respondent No.6 in the present appeal) under "The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007." The learned District Magistrate (South) vide order dated 18.12.2017 rejected the application of respondent No.1. Against the order of the rejection passed by the learned District Magistrate (South) dated 18.12.2017, respondent No.1 filed an appeal bearing appeal No. 17/2018 which was disposed of by the Appellate Court of Divisional Commissioner, Office of The Secretary-Cum-Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue on 23.03.2018. The learned Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal and directed respondent No.6 to vacate the premises within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.
c) The said order of the learned Divisional Commissioner was challenged by respondent No.6 by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 3413/2018 titled "Sunil Pawar vs. Learned Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner & Ors." which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court on 10.05.2018. The learned Single Judge was pleased to grant respondent No.6 six months time to hand over, vacant and peaceful possession of first floor of property bearing B-7, Extension 75, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029 i.e., on or before 08.10.2018.
d) Respondent No.6 was required to file an affidavit/undertaking before the writ court and the relevant paras of the affidavit are reproduced herein below: -
2. That in the aforesaid writ petition, this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 09/04/2018 was pleased to issue notice to the respondent no. 4, limited to the extent of extending time accorded to the petitioner and his family for vacating the subject property i.e., the First Floor of the property bearing no-: - B-7, Extension 75, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029.
3. That statement of the petitioner/deponent to the effect that he would require six (6) months' time to vacate the, subject.' property was also taken on record vide the aforesaid Order dated 09/04/2018.
4. That accordingly the petitioner hereby undertakes to this. Hon'ble Court that the petitioner along with his family shall vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the First Floor of the property bearing no. B-7, Extension 75, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-l10029, to the Respondent no. 4- Sh. Daulat Ram Pawar, on or before the expiry of the period of six months i.e., on or before 08.10.2018.
5. That the petitioner/deponent agrees and confirms to remain bound by his undertaking contained in this affidavit and that the petitioner/deponent is well aware about the legal consequence of non-compliance/breach of undertaking.
e) Respondent No.6 despite having given an undertaking and despite having availed a period of 6 months, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No. 25386/2018 titled "Sunil Pawar versus the Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr." challenging the order dated 10.05.2018 passed
The court balanced the rights under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and concluded that the proceedin....
The duty of the Maintenance Tribunal to consider the rights of the daughter-in-law under the Act, 2005 and the need for a composite order considering the competing claims of the parties under both ac....
The main legal point established is the need for a harmonious construction of the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring that the rights of both parties are given due considerati....
Eviction orders under the DV Act require careful consideration of evidence regarding shared household rights and cannot be issued without assessing domestic violence context and current legal obligat....
The interplay between the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act necessitates that claims to residence in a shared household under the DV Act cannot be overridden by eviction orders based ....
The court clarified the definition of 'shared household' and 'domestic relationship' under the Domestic Violence Act and the summary procedure for passing eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Ac....
The court established that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to override a woman's right to reside in a shared household as protected under the DV Act, emphasizing the need for....
Right of a woman to secure residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Ac....
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
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
