IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of children to maintain their parents under the Senior Citizens Act, and the court's authority to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the welfare and protection of senior citizens.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has approached this Court challenging Order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner rejecting an appeal filed by the Petitioner herein under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which had been filed against an Order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the District Magistrate rejecting an application filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (in short 'Senior Citizens Act').

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to this writ petition are that the property being B-78, Hari Nagar-II, Jaitpur, Delhi, was purchased in the name of the Petitioner herein by way of a Power of Attorney and other documents on 04.08.2003.

3. It is stated that the family of the Petitioner consists of her husband/Mohan Singh, who was enrolled in Army on 12.03.1963 and thereafter discharged from the service on 31.03.1980. It is stated that the Petitioner has three children, i.e., one daughter and two sons. It is stated that Respondent No.2 herein is the son of the Petitioner who is married to Respondent No.3 herein.

4. It is stated that Respondents No.2 and 3 are staying in the first floor of the property in question and the Petitioner's husband is occupying the second floor. It is stated that though the Petitioner lives in the ground floor of the property in question but she is unable to reside in the said property because of the ill treatment met out to her by Respondent No.2 and 3 and the Petitioner is currently residing with her daughter at H.No.260, I-Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Material on record discloses that the Petitioner and her husband are not in good terms and that there are litigations going on between them.

5. Material on record also discloses that a suit was filed by the husband of the Petitioner herein along with Respondent No.2 being CS No. 1330/2017 on the file of Additional District Judge-01, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and an application for restoration of the suit has been filed which is pending.

6. Material on record also reveals that a maintenance petition was filed by the Petitioner herein against her husband under Section 125 CrPC and vide Order dated 28.01.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Saket, Delhi, the husband of the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner herein.

7. Material on record indicates that all is not well in the family. Material on record also indicates that it is the allegation of the Petitioner that Respondent No.2 and 3 broke open the locks of the first floor of the house and forcibly entered the first floor and thrown away the belongings of the Petitioner and her daughter. The Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act with an application under Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, for eviction of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 from the premises in question.

8. It is stated that pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the Petitioner was assaulted by Respondents No.2 and 3 and their children resulting in injuries. It is stated that Police was called and the Petitioner was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre and the MLC of the Petitioner was conducted and the MLC report indicates the injuries to the Petitioner herein, i.e., tenderness and swelling in the occipital region, back and scarth marks on both forearms. It is stated that a complaint was lodged with SHO Jaitpur and FIR bearing NCR No. 35/2017 dated 03.12.2017 was registered under Section 323 and 506 of the IPC.

9. The District Magistrate vide Order dated 04.04.2019 held that the ownership of the property in question is not clear and since the Petitioner is claiming ownership of the property on the basis