Senior Citizens--Eviction of daughter-in-law--Both father and son are conniving with each other for seeking eviction of daughter in-law only, who is also having a small girl child--Application not maintainable

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. This order shall dispose of 2 petitions bearing CWP No.5722 of 2017 [for short ‘the 1st petition’] and CWP No.6917 of 2017 [for short ‘the 2nd petition’], both filed by Vimaljit Singh. The 1st petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short ‘the Act’] and in the 2nd petition, prayer has been made to direct the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner which has allegedly been threatened by his daughter-in-law Manpreet Kaur and her relatives.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a senior citizen of 64 years age, is married to Bhupinder Kaur and has two children, namely, Kanwerdeep Singh (son) and Deepkiran (daughter). He is allegedly the owner of House No.1676, Phase VII, Mohali. His son Kanwerdeep is married to Manpreet Kaur and has a girl child Aanya. According to the petitioner his daughter-in-law is harassing him and had even registered FIR No.35 dated 12.4.2016 under Sections 454, 380, 447 & 511 at Police Station, SAS Nagar, Mataur, Mohali against all the members of his family and his son is also living separately from her. He has also allegedly issued a public notice dated 1.1.2016 in “The Tribune” of disinheriting his son and respondent No.3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22 of the Act to the Additional District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali in which he arrayed his daughter-in-law as respondent and his son as performa respondent. The second petition is filed by the petitioner, narrating the same facts, for seeking protection to his life and liberty.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional District Magistrate has committed a patent error of law in dismissing the application despite the fact that the petitioner being a senior citizen has a right to seek eviction of respondent No.3 (daughter-in-law) in view of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 [for short ‘the Rules’] and the provisions of the Action Plan notified under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Punjab) [for short ‘the Action Plan’].

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the daughter-in-law has no right in the house of the father-in-law/mother-in-law, who lodged a complaint against them and caused harassment. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of “Feroz and another Vs. The District Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh and another” 2017 (2) HLR 468. It is also submitted that the house exclusively belongs to the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law has no right to live in the said house if her husband is living separately because the said property cannot be a shared household. In this regard, she has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of “Suman Vs. Tulsi Ram” 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 304. She has also relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of “Rakesh Kumar Sood Vs. The District Magistrate Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and others” 2017(2( RCR (Civil) 119 to contend that if there is a discord between husband and wife and the husband has started living separately in a rented house then the wife is not entitled to live in the house of the in-laws in the absence of her husband. She has further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Balbir Kaur Vs. Presiding Officer Officer-cum-S.D.M. of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others” 2015 (3) PLR 688 to contend that if the daughter-in-law has forcibly entered in the house of her in-laws, her in-laws are entitled to evict her by filing