Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Ranjit Kaur – Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP No. 14659 of 2017
Decided On : 11-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Arvinder Arora
For the Respondent: Saurabh Mohunta, Rakesh Bakshi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Act's provisions, specifically the definition of 'relative' and the powers of the District Magistrate in enforcing maintenance orders.
Headnote:
Maintenance Tribunal - Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 4, Section 5, Section 11, Section 16, Section 22 - The judgment discusses the application of the Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly focusing on the provisions related to maintenance, application for maintenance, enforcement of maintenance orders, and powers of the District Magistrate. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, which directed her to provide food and pay maintenance to respondent No.3, and also ordered her eviction from the house if she failed to comply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law, was not a relative of respondent No.3 and therefore could not be ordered to provide maintenance or be evicted from the house. The court also discussed the enforcement of maintenance orders and the powers of the District Magistrate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's obligation to provide maintenance and food, the enforcement of maintenance orders, and the applicability of the Act's provisions to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act's provisions, particularly regarding the definition of 'relative' and the powers of the District Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Naraingarh, dated 23.11.2015 by which the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to provide food for three times to respondent No.3 for six months in a year and after six months, Gurmeet Singh, the other son of respondent No.3 shall provide food to him. It is also directed that the petitioner would reside in lower portion of the house and respondent No.3 would reside in upper portion independently and the petitioner and Gurmeet Singh shall pay Rs. 5000/- each to respondent No.3 for his livelihood, otherwise they would be evicted from the house and the order dated 28.3.2017 dismissing her appeal filed under section 16 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act')
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3, stated to be 80 years of age, is a widower. His wife died in 2001. He has four sons, namely, Avtar Singh (living in Mumbai with his family), Tarsem Singh (living in Belgium with his family), Gurmeet Singh (living in Bhurewala District Ambala with his family) and Paramjit Singh, at present living in Spain and his wife is the petitioner in this case.
3. Respondent No.3 filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act against the petitioner and his other son Gurmeet Singh for seeking maintenance being a parent and senior citizen. The said application has been allowed by the Maintenance Tribunal by the impugned order dated 23.11.2015, wherein not only the petitioner has been asked to provide food to respondent No.3 for a period of six months but also to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance and in case she would fail to do so, then she would be evicted from the house in question which is allegedly owned by respondent No.3.
4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2017.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that he is only interested in eviction of the petitioner from the house in question.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in ordering eviction of the petitioner from the house in question for not providing food three times in a day for a period of six month and also payment of Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance of respondent No.3. In this regard, he has referred to Section 11 of the Act to contend that as per Section 11 (2) order of Maintenance Tribunal can be enforced in terms of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.). The order of Maintenance Tribunal that in case the petitioner does not pay Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance and provide three times food in a day to respondent No.3, then she would be liable for eviction, is patently erroneous. It is further submitted that if respondent No.3 is interested in seeking eviction of the petitioner from the house in question, then he has to file an application under Section 22 (2) of the Act which has to be decided by the District Magistrate and not by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a house wife, having no means of her own for the purpose of giving maintenance to respondent No.3 who is otherwise living with Gurmeet Singh (other son of respondent No.3). It is further submitted that there is no evidence brought on record about the earning capacity of the petitioner to fulfil the needs of respondent No.3.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that his son Paramjit Singh, who is in Spain, does not meet him as and when he visits India and the petitioner who is living in the house in question is not serving him food, therefore, he made an application for seeking maintenance but otherwise he is more keen in seeking her eviction from the house in question. It is also submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and
