Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Ramesh @ Pappi - Appellant
Versus
Ishwar Devi & Ors. - Respondents
LPA No. 483 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-07-2021
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The duty of children to care for their elderly parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as emphasized in Section 23(1), was a central legal principle in the judgment.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Rights - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 5(1), Section 23
Fact of the Case:
An elderly widow filed an application under Section 5(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking the return of her property and maintenance from her son. The SDM allowed the application, but the Appellate Tribunal partly reversed the decision. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the mother's writ petition, maintaining the SDM's order. The son filed an LPA against the High Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the SDM's order was well-reasoned and speaking, and the Appellate Tribunal's order was non-speaking and evasive. It upheld the SDM's decision, emphasizing the duty of children to care for their elderly parents under the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the SDM, the relief granted beyond the mother's application, and the validity of the Appellate Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the SDM's order was within jurisdiction, as the Act empowers the SDM to take cognizance suo moto. It also emphasized the duty of children to care for their elderly parents under Section 23(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The LPA was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was upheld. The Miscellaneous Applications and Caveat were disposed of accordingly.
ORDER
Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for caveat or-Ishwar Devi, respondent No.1 and have gone through the paper-book.
2. Brief facts as culled out from the paper book are that Ishwar Devi is an unfortunate widow aged more than 76 years old. Her deceased husband gave four Killas of land each to his both sons and one house each and two shops outside the house and the house is also behind the shop. Out of these, one shop was also given in writing to his younger son and the land measuring four Killas, one house and one shop were left for maintenance of respondent no.1- Ishwar Devi. After two years of the death of her husband, her younger son-Ramesh @ Pappi who is appellant herein asked his mother to transfer the second shop in his name and by playing fraud with her with the excuse of transfer of the shop, he also transferred her own house in his name and she came to know this fact only after two years when he installed the shutter in the passage of road and closed the passage from that side. It is the case of old aged widow mother that her son-Ramesh, the appellant herein ousted her from the house and Ramesh alongwith his sons also gave beatings to her. Even efforts for compromise were made before the Panchayat two-three times, but of no avail. Ultimately, she approached the SDM exercising the powers of Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Tohana (for short 'the SDM') by filing application under Section 5(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short the 'Act of 2007') to get the registry of the house and one shop to be returned to her and for protection of her life, liberty and property and for grant of maintenance alongwith allowing her to live in the house with dignity. The SDM allowed the application of the mother and ordered to cancel the transfer deed dated 04.09.2015 vide which two shops measuring area 32.32 square yards and transferred again in favour of the mother and allowed to live the mother in the house in question till her age and till she is alive and also ordered her son, Ramesh to give Rs. 2,000/- per month as subsistence allowance to his mother vide order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-4).
3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the SDM, Ramesh filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, chaired by District Collector, Fatehabad (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal'). The Appellate Tribunal by passing an order dated 11/12.02.2020 (Annexure P-l) partly reversed and set aside the well reasoned findings of the SDM with regard to cancellation of the transfer deed and only maintained grant of maintenance and the right to live in her house.
4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the mother approached this Court by filing writ petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 11/12.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition filed by the mother has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 20.04.2021 thereby maintaining the order in toto passed by the SDM. Consequently, appellant-Ramesh has filed this LPA before this Court against the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law by over-looking the fact that even the order passed by the SDM is beyond the relief asked for by respondent no.1-Ishwar Devi. In support of this submission, learned counsel refers to the application dated 26/11/2018 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No. 1-Ishwar Devi. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has erred erroneously by observing that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is non-speaking. Learned counsel contends that even if this is the situation, the normal course is that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Appellate T
