Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Bharat Sachdeva @ Pankaj & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Prem Lata & Ors. – Respondents
CM-14254-CII of 2021 in/and CR-8812 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the Respondent.
The duty of children to maintain their aged parents as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, and the court's power to order the transfer of possession to the senior citizen in cases of neglect.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Property Rights - 2007 - Section 23
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a widowed mother and her son and daughter-in-law over the possession of a property inherited by the mother. The son and daughter-in-law had taken possession of a part of the property for running a factory and were accused of harassing and humiliating the mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the son and daughter-in-law had unlawfully taken possession of the property and had failed to fulfill their duty to maintain the aged mother, as required by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
Issues: The main issue was the rightful possession of the property and the duty of the son and daughter-in-law to maintain the widowed mother.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, emphasizing the duty of children to maintain their aged parents and the power of the court to order the transfer of possession to the senior citizen in cases of neglect.
Final Decision: The civil revision was dismissed, upholding the orders of the Appellate Tribunal to transfer the property back in favor of the widowed mother.
JUDGMENT
Fateh Deep Singh, J. - CM-14254-CII-2021
1. In view of the averments made in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed. Documents annexed therewith are taken on record.
2. CM stands disposed off.
3. The present revision petition by petitioners-Bharat Sachdeva @ Pankaj and his wife Aarti Sachdeva filed against respondent No.1-Prem Lata, widowed mother of petitioner No.1, who happens to be a senior citizen and had initially invoked the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Jagadhari, under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short 'the Act'). In her invocation, the petitioner had sought handing over the vacant actual and physical possession of a room with attached latrine-bathroom on the ground floor and roof of residential house duly described and depicted in the petition. The trial Court vide order dated 02.05.2017 dismissed the application directing her to approach the competent Court seeking eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from the house. Aggrieved over this, Prem Lata filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar. It is vide order dated 11.10.2017, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal whereby ordering that the property be transferred back in favour of Prem Lata. It is this finding which is subject matter of assailment.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Admittedly, the property in question is the ownership of the widowed mother-Prem Lata by virtue of inheritance and the opposite party happens to be her grown up married son and daughter-in-law.
6. It is during the course of time, the son and the daughterin-law managed to persuade the widowed mother and on the plea of installing a factory got registered a deed dated 21.01.2013 in their favour. It is subsequent thereto, the petitioners started harassing and humiliating the widowed aged mother which led to the filing of the proceedings. Though, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate has sought to place reliance upon judgments titled as 'Jagtrnieei Kaur Pannu versus Ranjit Kaur Pannu' 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 82; 'Sarabift Kaur versus District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Barnala and others' 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 433; 'Gurilev Singh versus State of Punjab and others' 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 945; 'Harvinder Kaur Bawa versus The Appellate Tribunal, Panchkula and others' 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 853; 'Kuldip Kaur versus Kabal Singh' Civil Revision No.7869 of 2016 and 'Smt. S Vanitha versus The Deputy Commissoner Bengaluru Urban District and others' 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 177 to drive home the point that since the daughter-in-law by virtue of her relationship is having a right in the shared house and, therefore, she cannot be thrown out of the same which is stoutly opposed on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1 who has sought support from citing the judgments titled as 'Promil Tomar and others versus State of Haryana and others' CWP-20072-2013; and 'Gurdeep Singh versus Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Samana' CWP-13121 of 2016.
7. Appreciating the submissions, the Act is a special Legislation for protecting the interests of senior citizens thereby, with the aim and object to ensure that the senior citizens are not left to fend for themselves and to prevent destituteness. No doubt, the claim of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has a right by way of shared household but it needs to be ensured any such gift by virtue of a gift deed though is covered under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the present Act being a special Legislation has a overriding effect over the Domestic Violence Act. This Court in Promil Tomar and others versus State of Haryana and others' CWP-20072-2013; and 'Gurdeep Singh versus Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Mainten
