Point of Law: purpose of the Act as noted above is to make provisions for the “maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizen” guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India. The duties and powers of the District Magistrate enumerated in Rule 21 contained in Chapter V of the Rules, 2014 are, thus, in furtherance of the said object and purpose of the Act as aforesaid. All the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto are obviously to be in relation to the object and purpose of the Act

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sudhir Bharti learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.6.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby he has rejected the application moved by petitioner no. 1 namely Ms. Swaraj Varun under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Senior Citizens Act, 2007"). The petitioner no. 1 is unmarried daughter of petitioner no. 2, whereas respondent no. 5 is his daughter-in-law.

3. The aforesaid order of rejection is being challenged on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 is a senior citizen aged about 60 years, whereas petitioner no. 2 (father of petitioner no. 1) is 93 years old. The petitioner no. 2 is incapable to move freely due to fracture of his both hips. The brother of petitioner no. 1, i.e. husband of respondent no. 5 had committed suicide on 21.4.2004. The allegations are that her brother (husband of respondent no. 5) had died due to cruelty and atrocities committed by her sister-in-law.

4. On 3.3.2019, respondent no. 5 threatened and abused both the petitioners and physically assaulted petitioner no. 1 with the help of her relatives. A first information report dated 4.3.2019 was lodged by the petitioner no. 1/applicant against respondent no. 5. On 3.3.2019 itself, at about 21:07 Hours, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sector 20, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar came with respondent no. 5 to the house of the petitioners and forced the petitioner no. 1 to give keys of the main gate of the house-in-question to respondent no. 5. As a result of the aforesaid, the applicant/petitioner no. 1 was constrained to file an application under Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (In short as "the Rules, 2014") for eviction of respondent no. 5 and her two sons from the house-in-question.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Rule 21 of the Rules, 2014, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District (area of his jurisdiction) are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides that application under Section 4 of the Act may be made by a senior citizen or any person or organization authorized by him. Section 6 deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which conducts the proceeding under Section 5 of the Act against any children or relative. Section 21 as contained in Chapter V and Section 32 as contained in Chapter VII of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 empowers the State Government to take all measures and to make rule, to ensure protection of life and property of senior citizens, for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

6. The submission is that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been enacted not only to provide for effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India, but also to protect their property to meet its objects. Rule 21 of the Rules, 2014 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enumerates duties and powers of the District Magistrate in the area of his jurisdiction and obligates to oversee and monitor the work of Maintenance Tribunal of the district. Rule 21 sub-rule (2)(i) mandates the District Magistrate to take all steps to protect the life and property of senior citizens of the district.

7. In light of the above provisions, the District Magistrate has committed a serious error of law in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner no. 1 as not maintainable, while redirecting her to move an application before the Maintenance Tribunal. The observation in the order of the District Magistrate that it was only empowered to deci