The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly the provisions of Section 23 and Section 22, in the context of property ownership and eviction of family members.

ORDER

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Life is full with extraordinary challenges and unrivalled opportunities, but such chances must not be used against those, who parented you. With the birth of the children, the parents feel the paramount bliss of the Supreme Power and thank Him. However, when the very children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them at the mercy of their destiny and use their muscle power to torture and harass them, the parents' world gets totally shattered. They become helpless from all sides and thus, begins the unfortunate tale of their moving from one Forum to another for redressal of their grievance(s).

2. In the holy script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Dass has written 'KAAHAY POOT JHAGRAT HA-0 SANGBAAP/ JIN KAY JANAY BADEERAY TUM HA-0 TIN SIO JHAGRAT PAPP//" (O son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you).

3. The above words of prudence guide us that we have to treat our parents as God. The instant case is a classic example of the aforesaid narration, wherein the petitioners are seeking the equities entirely forgetting that it is because of their conduct that their old and aged parents had to seek the petitioners' eviction so as to buy back their peace and freedom.

4. The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 and mandate them not to interfere in the property of the petitioners. A prayer has also made to dismiss the application filed by respondent No.4 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2007 Act'), wherein the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected from the house in question.

5. The facts, in brief, of the case are that respondent No.4 filed an application under the provisions of the 2007 Act against the petitioners i.e. his son-petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law/ petitioner No.2, with the averments that he purchased the plot, vide registered sale deed No.4293 dated 25.03.1997, and had raised the construction over it. The petitioners herein were not treating respondents No.4 and 5 properly and depriving them even of the basic necessities. The petitioners wanted to grab the property of respondents No.4 and 5 and owing to their behaviour, respondents No.4 and 5 had disowned petitioner No.1 from their movable and immovable property. Respondents No.4 and 5 requested the petitioners to vacate the house in question, but to no avail. On their application, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar, reported that respondent No.4 is owner of the house and behaviour of the petitioners towards him and his wife is not good and the petitioners are even not fulfilling the daily needs of respondents No.4 and 5.

6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in his report had recommended ejectment of the petitioners and sent the same to the office of the District Magistrate and vide order dated 17.07.2019, District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, had ordered ejectment of the petitioners from the house in question.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the house in question is a joint Hindu family property. Petitioner No.1 also contributed in the construction of ground floor of the house in the year 1989-90. He also started a business wherein respondent No.4 was shown as the proprietor. The renovation of ground floor was completed in the year 1994-95 and the first floor of the house in question was constructed out of the funds of the joint Hindu family property. The learned counsel would further submit that in fact, respondents No.4 and 5 had ill-treated petitioner No.2 and accordingly, FIR No.570 dated 04.09.1998, Police Station City Thanesar, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 IPC had been registered against respondents No.4 and