Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Gunja Kunal Choudhary @ Gunja Jaiswal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5594 of 2019
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Maheth Tewari.
For the Respondent: Lukesh Kumar.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the State Women Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints of senior citizens against a woman under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Jurisdictional Error - 2007 - Summary: The court quashed the order passed by the State Women Commission directing the eviction of the petitioner from her matrimonial home. The court held that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Commission was misconceived as the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act do not empower the State Women Commission to entertain complaints of senior citizens against a woman. The court allowed the writ petition with the observation that the respondent No. 3 is at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of her grievance as provided under law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the order passed by the State Women Commission directing her eviction from her matrimonial home. The petitioner's relationship with her husband and in-laws had severely deteriorated, leading to multiple cases being filed against each other.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 before the State Women Commission was misconceived as the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act do not empower the Commission to entertain complaints of senior citizens against a woman. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The propriety of the order passed by the State Women Commission directing the eviction of the petitioner from her matrimonial home.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Women Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of a senior citizen against a woman under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, with the observation that the respondent No. 3 is at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of her grievance as provided under law.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. It has been reported by the office that the notice issued to the respondent No. 2 through ordinary process has duly been served on the said respondent.
2. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 whereas Mr. Lukesh Kumar is present on behalf of the respondent No. 3.
3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 2892 dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Chairperson, State Women Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as “the said Commission”] in Case No. 258/2019 whereby she has directed the Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi to evict the petitioner form her matrimonial home.
4. The factual background of the case in brief, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was married to one Kunal Choudhary on 12.03.2015 and a male child was born out of the said wedlock, who is presently about 6 years old. Sometime after marriage, the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and her husband deteriorated which compelled the petitioner to file Complaint Case No. 3004/2018 under Sections 498(A)/379/120(B)/323/341 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners husband also filed a matrimonial Suit being O.S. No. 332/2018 under Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce, however, the same ended in a compromise on 28.09.2018 with an undertaking of the petitioners husband to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said maintenance was not paid to her, which led to filing of another case against her husband being Original Maintenance Case No. 107/2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of the maintenance. The mother-in-law of the petitioner (the respondent No. 3) also filed a complaint case against the petitioner and her family members under Sections 341/323/325/379/504/506/34 IPC. The said complaint case was referred by the concerned criminal Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C leading to registration of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 177/2019 on 01.07.2019 under Sections 323/379/504/506/34 IPC.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it has been stated that the petitioner has also lodged another complaint case under Sections 498(A)/379/120(B)/323/ 341 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which was registered as Complaint Case No. 3526/2019. As per the assertion of the respondent No. 3 made in the counter affidavit, she has lodged one criminal case against the petitioner being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 292/2019 under Sections 323/341 IPC on 13.10.2019.
6. The lodging of the aforesaid cases against each other is indicative of the fact that the relationship of the petitioner with her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law has severely deteriorated.
7. Be that as it may.
8. The present writ petition is only confined to the propriety of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the said Commission whereby the Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi has been directed to evict the petitioner from her matrimonial home on an application filed by the respondent No. 3.
9. Though the copy of complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 before the said Commission has not been brought on record by the parties, yet on perusal of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019, it appears that the same was filed alleging that the petitioner used to physically and mentally torture her mother-in-law and father-in-law and due to the said reason, they coming under the category of senior citizens, did not want to keep her daughter-in-law in their house. The impugned order dated 10.10.2019 thus suggests that in fact, the respondent No. 3 and her husband have sought relief before the said Commission on the ground of being senior citizens and have thus requested it for evicting the petitioner from their house.
10. It
