Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.J. Kathawalla and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.
Mrs. Rajani B. Somkuwar —Petitioner
versus
Ms. Sarita Somkuwar and Anr. —Respondents
Ad-Hoc No.WP-LD-VC-20 of 2020
Writ Petition (L) No...of 2020
Decided on 5.6.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shyam Dewani a/w. Mr. Sahil Dewani, Ms. Heena Kapoor i/b. Dewani and Associates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Amarendra Mishra, Advocate
Mrs. Rajani B. Somkuwar – Petitioner a/w. her youngest daughter – Ms. Vaishali Somkuwar – Mane, present in person.
Ms. Sarita Somkuwar – Respondent No. 1, present in person.
IMPORTANT POINT
If children cannot take care of their parent/s and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 4 – Eviction petition against daughter – Petitioner seriously apprehends physical and mental harassment and consequently threat to her life at hands of respondent if she goes to reside in her own Flat without respondent being evicted from the same – However, in view of pandemic and consequent problems that individuals are facing, Court not passing an order directing respondent to make alternate arrangements – However, stern warning given to respondent as well as her son, that if either of them cause any harassment to Petitioner making it difficult for her to reside in her own Flat, Court will forthwith restrain them from entering the Flat in which Petitioner is residing notwithstanding that respondent may be having a small share in the Flat, as heir of her father – If children cannot take care of their parent/s and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell – Stern warning issued to respondent and her in this regard. (Para 5)
Result: Directions issued.
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner is 70 years of age and is an ex-government employee. Respondent No. 1 is one of the five daughters of the Petitioner.
2. As more particularly set out in the Petition and hereinafter, it is the Petitioner’s case that she is mentally as well as physically tortured by her daughter - Respondent No. 1, who is a divorcee and is forcefully residing along with her 19 year old son – Chayankk Kumar in the Petitioner’s fat, being Flat No. 1504, 15th Floor, Akruli Satya CHSL., Crimson Tower, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400 101, (‘the said Flat’). The Petitioner has fled an Application under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the Act’), before Respondent No. 2 – Sub Divisional Officer, Maintenance Tribunal for Parents and Senior Citizens, on 16th March, 2020 seeking eviction of Respondent No. 1 from the said Flat. However due to the lockdown, the Tribunal is not available to decide her Application. She is therefore compelled to move this Court under its Writ jurisdiction.
3. According to the Petitioner :
i. In the year 1968 the Petitioner got married to Shri Bhayyasaheb Somkuwar. The Petitioner has five daughters from the said marriage i.e. Ms. Sujata Sawant (‘Sujata’), Ms. Kavita Sharma (‘Kavita’), Ms. Sarita Somkuwar (‘Sarita’), who is Respondent No.1 herein, Ms. Kranti Gupta (‘Kranti’) and Ms. Vaishali Mane (‘Vaishali’). All the daughters except Respondent No. 1 are married and residing with their families. Sarita is a divorcee and is forcefully residing in the said Flat along with her son.
ii. Sarita since a teenager was indulging in wrongful acts and had friends with a criminal background. The Petitioner and her husband constantly tried to make Sarita see sense, and would often reprimand her with regard to her conduct. However, Sarita never paid any heed to their advice and was always rebellious.
iii. In the year 1998, Sarita absconded with her male friend – Ritesh Devkar (‘Ritesh’), who also had a criminal background. She got married to him and started living at Vasai. Around February 2000, Ritesh was arrested in connection with a scam, on allegations of defrauding poor people, by collecting certain amounts on a promise to secure them jobs in Dubai.
iv. From the year 2000, the Petitioner and her husband, along with their then unmarried daughters started residing in the said Flat. Although, the Agreement of the said Flat is registered in the names of the Petitioner and her husband, the Share Certificate issued by the Society, stands in the name of her husband.
v. In July, 2000, due to constant fights between Sarita and Ritesh, Ritesh fed from their mortgaged house in Vasai abandoning Sarita and their infant son.
vi. Sarita thereafter approached her sister – Kavita, who was then living at Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai, for help, as she was afraid to approach the Petitioner and her husband, knowing that they were always against her wrongful conduct / activities. At the instance of Kavita, the Petitioner and her husband allowed Sarita to live with them in the said Flat for a few days, i.e. till she found a suitable place to live in.
vii. After living in the said Flat for a few months, Sarita secured a job in HDFC Bank. Despite her financial condition having improved, Sarita refused to leave the said Flat. Instead she started instigating her sister ‘Kranti’ against the Petitioner and her husband and tried to create differences between the family members. In view of the tactics / strategies adopted by Sarita to cause harassment, the Petitioner’s husband called Kavita and informed her about Sarita’s conduct. He also informed her that ironically Kranti is also supporting Sarita and participating in the fights commenced by Sarita. He also asked Sarita to leave the said Flat. Instead of leaving the said Flat, Sarita threatened her father saying that, “if you force me to leave the house then I will lodge a police complaint against you that you a
