Senior Citizens--Eviction of daughter-in-law--In absence of prima facie evidence against alleged misbehavior by daughter-in law application for eviction by senior citizen is liable to dismissed
Senior Citizens--Eviction of daughter-in-law--Application filed by senior Citizen is not to be allowed mechanically but after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The petitioner is a senior citizen, who has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Jalandhar dated 11.04.2017 by which an application filed by him under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short ‘the Act’] read with the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 [for short ‘the Rules’] and Action Plan notified on 27.11.2014 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Punjab) [for short ‘the Action Plan’], against his widowed daughter-in-law for seeking her eviction from House No.36-A situated at Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar City, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the father-in-law of respondent No.2. He is a senior citizen. His wife, who is also a senior citizen, is residing with him in the house in question. Respondent No.2 got married with Sanjay Kumar, son of the petitioner, on 23.4.2000. A girl child, namely, Surbhi was born to respondent No.2 on 10.12.2002. The son of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay died in a road accident on 30.6.2011. Respondent No.2 with his daughter, who is now about more than 15 years of age, is living in a portion of the house in question. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Jalandhar under Section 22 of the Act, Rules and Action Plan in which he has averred that when his son was alive the behaviour of respondent No.2 was good but she started harassing the petitioner after the death of his son and he had to execute a registered Will in favour of respondent No.2 which was later on revoked. He has given the incidence of harassment by referring to a complaint alleged to have been lodged by respondent No.2 on 16.10.2016 with Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar, which is allegedly found to be false and consigned. The petitioner has further alleged that he had orally revoked the license of occupation of respondent No.2 and asked her to vacate the portion in her possession. The said application was dealt with by the District Magistrate, Jalandhar in terms of the provisions of the Action Plan which provides that District Magistrate, after receiving the complaint, shall forward the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for verification of the title of the property. The said Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-I sent his report dated 24.1.2017. Thereafter notice was issued by the District Magistrate to respondent No.2 to appear and file her reply. Denying all the allegations made in the application filed by the petitioner, it was averred by the respondents in her reply that the allegations made in the complaint are false, frivolous and baseless. She also stated that after the death of her husband in the road accident, the amount of compensation was taken by the petitioner and also the amount of insurance policy was received by the petitioner and his wife which was deposited in the shape of FDR’s in the State Bank of India and Co-operative Bank in their name. She has also averred that after the death of her husband, it has become difficult for her to maintain herself and her daughter, namely, Surbhi, who is studying in a school and that the construction of the house was done with the funds of her husband. It is also submitted by her that there is no incident, sort of any kind of harassment or humiliation, reported by the petitioner and the application had been filed by misusing the provisions of law for seeking her and her minor daughter eviction from the house in question. It is also submitted that being a widow with a minor daughter, she has no place to live except the portion which she has been using after the death of her husband. She has denied to have lodged any complaint to the police on 16.10.2016 against the petitioner.

3. The District Magistrate, after hearing the parties, was of the view that the house in question, as per the report of the SDM, Jalandhar-I, belongs to the petitioner. He has found that respon