Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 2108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Mamta Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Maintenance Tribunal & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 38040 of 2018
Decided On : 05-11-2020
For the Parties : Ms. Promila Nain, Mr. T.P.S. Chawla DAG, Punjab, Ms. Shubhreet Kaur, Mr. L.M. Gulati
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(f), 22, 23 and 27 - Petitioner, a widowed daughter-in-law, aggrieved by eviction order of father-in-law - Court affirms the Tribunal’s authority to protect senior citizens' property rights and uphold maintenance provisions. (Para 28, 46)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Tribunal can enforce rights of senior citizens against children and relatives, ensuring their peaceful enjoyment of property, even if it necessitates eviction of inappropriate occupants. (Para 48)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has lived with her father-in-law since her husband's death in 2003; allegations of her misconduct prompted her father-in-law's complaint for eviction. (Paras 1, 11)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal acted within authority to ensure the senior citizen's right to live peacefully is upheld, justifying eviction based on evidence of harassment and misconduct. (Para 62)
Issues: Can a daughter-in-law be evicted from her father-in-law's property under the 2007 Act? Is eviction consistent with the Act's provisions? (Para 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the 2007 Act entitles senior citizens to a peaceful environment and allows for their protection against relatives' encroachment, affirming eviction authority for the Tribunal. (Para 60)
Result: Writ petition partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of parties in writ petition (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on eviction (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. defense of respondent against petitioner's claims (Para 34 , 40) |
| 4. court's directive for amicable settlement (Para 62 , 63) |
| 5. final orders and modification from the court (Para 64 , 67) |
Judgment
Mr. Arun Monga, J.:- Before this court is a widowed daughter in law, aged about 53 years, pitted against her 82 years old father in law. She has assailed an order dated 26.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Maintenance Tribunal on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2, under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007(for brevity, 2007 Act). Petitioner is aggrieved against the direction issued to her to vacate her matrimonial home set up in a part of the selfacquired house owned of her father in law/respondent no.2. She is/was to hand over vacant possession of the part of House No. 221, Model House, Ludhiana to respondent No.2 within a month. Prayer in the instant petition is to quash the impugned order and also to direct respondent No.2 not to harass petitioner and to provide her alternate accommodation, either in the same house or at any other place. Further prayer is to direct respondent no.2 to give alleged share of petitioner and her deceased husband from the family business and, also hand over other immovable and moveable assets from the joint family.
2. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that in the present writ proceedings, with the able, earnest and considerable efforts of the learned counsel for parties, this court first tried for reconciliation between the parties. Despite repeated efforts nothing came forth in the end. Parties were directed to be present through video conferencing and were also heard by me in person. However, no amicable way out could be arrived at. Prior to efforts made by this court, matter was also referred to mediation center but, just as before this court, it turned out to be an exercise in futility.
3. Apart from writ proceedings herein emanating from a quasijudicial Tribunal, multiple litigations filed by petitioner in different courts are also sub-judice. A civil suit for declaration, possession of immovable property and rendition of accounts; a complaint under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and; a maintenance petition under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 have been filed.
4. Succinct factual background which led to the institution of present writ petition is noticed first.
5. Petitioner got married on 17.11.1987 with late Sh. Brijesh Kumar son of respondent No.2. Three children, two daughters and a son, were born out of the wedlock. Late Brijesh Kumar was Managing Director in a private limited company namely M/s Vashishth Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd., while wife of respondent no.2 late Smt. Raj Rani (mother in law) and his two other sons Sh. Umesh Sharma and Sh. Sumesh Sharma were all Directors. Petitioner states that from the funds diverted from the aforesaid company, a new partnership concern under the name and style of M/s Vashishth Forging was set up. Petitioner was made a partner with 40% share therein while respondent No.2 was the other partner with 60% share.
6. Petitioner’s case is that the house in question, originally having only a single storey construction, was purchased by respondent No.2 from the funds provided by his father. Later on, out of the funds of aforesaid two entities viz M/s Vashishth Industrial Products and M/s Vashishth Forging, further construction of first and second floor was carried out by late husband of the petitioner. The house in question thus became joint property of the family. Unfortunately, petitioner’s husband died untimely in the year, 2003. She continued to reside in the house in question with her children. There was no complaint whatsoever, from any quarters. She took proper care of her father in law-respondent No.2, bei
