Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ms. Nandita Dubey, J.
Amrita Bhatia (Smt.)& Others v. Baljeet Singh Bhatia & Others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 5217 of 2019(Jabalpur);
Decided on12.2.2020
(1) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 22 -- scope -- exercise of right u/s. 22 regarding protection of life or property of senior citizen -- has been conferred irrespective of whether person who threatens life or property of senior citizen is related to senior citizen or not. [Para 15
(2) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 23 -- expression'transfer by way of gift or otherwise' -- should be liberally interpreted to include transfer of possession, otherwise than gift -- tribunal can issue eviction order against ex-daughter-in-law and grandsons to ensure that senior citizen may live peacefully in his house. W. P. No. 15453 of 2016 (Raj.) and C. M. (M) No.105 of 2008 (Del.) relied on. [Para 15
(3) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 23 -- Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 -- Rr. 19 and 22 -- respondent No. 1 senior citizen is owner of property -- permitted his son and his family members (present petitioners) to live separately on first floor -- possession of petitioners is permissive -- this permission stands terminated the moment senior citizen makes complaint to District Magistrate against petitioners to vacate premises -- ex-daughter-in-law and grandsons have no legal right to live in self-acquired house of respondent No. 1 -- they can only live till respondent No. 1 allows them -- this permission/support is available only till there is mutual love and affection between them -- mistrust and disrespect creeps in relationship between parties and petitioners create nuisance for respondent No. 1 -- he is not obliged to suffer their presence in his house -- has right to seek eviction of petitioners from said premises. [Paras 16 & 19
(4) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- Ss. 3 and 27 -- availability of alternative remedy -- remedy of civil suit for eviction -- provisions of this Act have overriding effect -- jurisdiction of civil Court barred in respect of any matter to which provisions of Act apply -- no injunction shall be granted by any civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act. [Paras 20 & 21
¼1½ ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfËkfu;e] 2007 && /kkjk 22 & O;kfIr & ofj"B ukxfjd ds thou vFkok laifÙk ds laj{k.k ds laca/k esa /kkjk 22 ds v/khu vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx && blls fujis{k iznÙk fd;k x;k gS fd ofj"B ukxfjd ds thou vFkok laifÙk ds ladVxzLr djus okyk O;fDr ukxfjd dk ukrsnkj gS ;k ughaA ¼iSjk 15
¼2½ ekrk&&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfËkfu;e] 2007 && /kkjk 23 vfHkO;fDr ^laifÙk dk nku ds :i esa ;k vU;Fkk varj.k* && nku ds vykok] dCts dk varj.k lfEefyr djus ds fy, mnkjrk ls fuoZpu fd;k tkuk pkfg, && ofj"B ukxfjd vius Hkou esa 'kkafriwoZd jg lds] ;g lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, vf/kdj.k HkwriwoZ iq=o/kq vkSj iksrksa ds fo#) csn[kyh dk vkns'k tkjh dj ldrk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 15453 lu~ 2016 ¼jkt-½ rFkk lh- ,e- ¼,e½ Ø- 105 lu~ 2008 ¼fnYyh½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15
¼3½ ekrk&&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfËkfu;e] 2007 && /kkjk 22 rFkk 23 && ekrk&&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k fu;e] 2009 && fu- 19 rFkk 22 && izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ofj"B ukxfjd laifÙk dk Lokeh gS & vius iq= rFkk mlds dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ¼orZeku ;kphx.k½ dks izFke ry ij i`Fkd~ jgus dh vuqKk nh && ;kphx.k dk dCtk vuqKs; gS && ;g vuqKk mlh {k.k lekIr gks tkrh gS tc ofj"B ukxfjd ifjlj fjDr djkus ds fy, ftyk eftLVªsV dks ;kphx.k ds fo#) f'kdk;r djrk gS && HkwriwoZ iq=o/kq rFkk iksrkssa dks izR;FkhZ Ø-1 ds LokftZr Hkou esa jgus dk dksbZ fofËkd vf/kdkj ugha && og dsoy rc rd jg ldrs gSa tc rd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 mUgsa jgus ns && ;g vuqKk@vkyaac dsoy rc rd miyC/k gS tc rd muds e/; ikjLifjd isze vkSj Lusg gS && i{kdkjksa ds e/; lca/kksa esa vfo'okl vkSj vuknj vk x;k vkSj ;kphx.k izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ds fy, U;wlsUl l`ftr djus yxs && og vius Hkou esa mudh mifLFkfr lgu djus dks ck/; ugha && mDr ifjlj ls ;kphx.k dh csn[kyh dh bZIlk djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 19
¼4½ ekrk&&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfËkfu;e] 2007 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 27 && vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk && csn[kyh ds fy, flfoy okn dk mipkj && bl vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa dk v/;kjksgh izHkko gS && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ,sls fdlh Hkh fo"k; ds ckjs esa oftZr gS ftldks vf/kfu;e ds mica/k ykxw gksrs gSa && ,slh fdlh Hkh dk;Z ds ckjs esa flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk O;kns'k iznku ugha fd;k tk,xk tks bl vf/kfu;e }kjk ;k blds v/khu fd;k x;k gS vFkok fd;k tkuk vk'kf;r gSA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Ex-daughter-in-law and grandsons of respondent No. 1, for setting aside the order dated 19.9.2019, passed by Additional Collector (City) Jabalpur on an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short the Act of 2007) by the respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.1 filed an application on 19.3.2019 under Section 22 of the Act of 2007 read with rules 19 and 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 (for short the Rules of 2009) before the SDM Jabalpur. It was pleaded that he is owner of house No. A-28. The ex-wife of his son (daughter-in-law) and his two grandsons are residing at first floor of the said house. It was alleged that petitioners misbehave, harass and physically assault the applicant and his wife and threatens to register a false case of outrage of modesty, dowry demand against him and to get him declared lunatic. It was further alleged that the petitioners are asking for partition and to register the house in their name. It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be evicted from the premises and to further restrain them from beating or misbehaving with him and from reentering the said house.
3. The petitioners filed a detailed reply denying the allegations in the application. It was contended that petitioner No. 1, her ex-husband (since absconding) and her two sons started living separately on the first floor of the house, with the permission of applicant/respondent No. 1. The premises, which was in a dilapidated condition, was made habitable and got furnished by petitioner No. 1's father. It was further contended that her ex-husband fled away from Jabalpur after taking all money and her jewelery, in the month of June, 2016, for which a missing person report and a complaint of theft was lodged at Police Station, Gorakhpur. It was further stated that to pressurize her to compromise in the criminal cases registered by her against her ex-husband (son of respondent No. 1), the present application has been filed.
4. The competent authority, by order dated 7.6.2019, allowed the application holding that property in question is the self acquired property of applicant/respondent No. 1 and the petitioners have been living in the said property with the permission of respondent No. 1. The SDM further directed that the petitioners/non-applicants to vacate the premises in question within 30 days. The SDM further directed to ensure that the applicant and his cancer patient wife live peacefully and with dignity in their own house without being harassed and physically assaulted by the petitioners. In addition, the Station Incharge, Police Station, Garha has directed to get the order complied with, if the same is not done by the non-applicants/petitioners with in the stipulated time.
5. Apprehending ouster from the property in question, the petitioners filed a review application for recall of the order dated 19.6.2019 on the ground that ex-parte order was passed against them and they were not heard or given any opportunity for producing the evidence nor provided opportunity to cross-examine the applicant/respondent No. 1. It was further contended that responsibility to maintain the applicant/respondent No. 1 is primarily is of his own son, i.e., defendant No.1, who is absconding for the last three years and not of petitioners/daughter-in-law and grandsons.
6. The competent authority considering that the matter is regarding family dispute and not of maintenance, allowed the review application on 9.7.2019 and recalled the order of eviction.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant/respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector (City) Jabalpur. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 9.7.2019 passed in the review application an
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
