IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, J.
Kasupa Gowramma - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 38604 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2023
Mandamus - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 - Sec. 3 - Summary: The court discussed the petitioners' right to live in peace, the harassment by their son and daughter-in-law, and the property dispute. It highlighted the overriding effect of the Senior Citizens Act and the need for eviction to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizens. The court referred to the decision in S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 730. The final decision directed respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate the house and pay maintenance to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, aged about 70 and 64 years, sought protection and maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 due to harassment by their son and daughter-in-law. They also sought eviction of the respondents from the property purchased by petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were harassed and mentally tortured by their son and daughter-in-law, and that eviction was necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizens. It also noted the petitioners' right to live in peace and the need for eviction to enable them to derive rental income from the property.
Issues: Harassment and mental torture of the petitioners by their son and daughter-in-law, property dispute, right to live in peace, and the need for eviction to ensure maintenance and protection of the senior citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eviction was necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizens, and that the petitioners had the right to live in peace and derive rental income from the property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate the house and pay maintenance to the petitioners. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.6 in not registering the F.I.R. against respondent Nos.7 and 8 basing on the complaints, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 and not providing protection of petitioner life and property as per Article-21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and as envisaged under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short "the Act") and Rules in spite of the petitioners' complaint, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 as arbitrary, highly illegal, violation of petitioners' fundamental legal rights..."
2. The case of the petitioners is that while petitioner No.2 while working in the BDL, had purchased the house bearing Municipal No.18/7/607/8/26 admeasuring 146 square yards, situated at Danaiah Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad, in the name of his wife i.e., petitioner No.1, under registered sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 bearing document No.1146 of 1998. It is further case of the petitioners that they were blessed with two daughters and one son and performed their marriages. The respondent No.8 is the wife of their son-respondent No.7 and they lived comfortably with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and in the year, 2010, petitioner No.2 retired from service and he was paid an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs as retirement benefits and since then, respondent No.7 started demanding money for extending his business and finally petitioner No.2 paid an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to respondent No.7. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.7 has taken three tolas of gold ornaments and did not return the same. It is the specific case of petitioners that on 26/1/2016, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have thrown out them from their house and creating problems on one pretext or the other. It is the further case of the petitioners that taking advantage of their old age, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by hook or crook wanted to grab the house property purchased by petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent Nos.7 and 8, the petitioners have filed an application before respondent No.3 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as "Senior Citizens Act") and the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short "Rules") seeking protection and maintenance, in Case No.D/524/2021. Vide orders dtd. 11/8/2021, respondent No.3 directed respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein, to pay Rs.10, 000.00 per month to the petitioners. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 vide Case No.A/305/2022 and the same was dismissed on 4/6/2022. It is further case of the petitioners that though the petitioners lodged complaints, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 to respondent No.6 seeking protection from the respondent Nos.7 and 8, the respondent No.6 has not acted upon the said complaints for providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners from the constant harassment and mental torture by the respondent Nos.7 and 8. Hence, the writ petition.
3. On 27/10/2023, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court, passed the following interim order:
"Respondent No.7-K. Srinivas is present in the Court and he has undertaken to pay additional sum of Rs.10, 000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month to the petitioners, apart from an amount of Rs.10, 000.00 per month already directed to be paid vide order dtd. 11/8/2021 in Case No.D152412021 passed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad Division. Respondent No.7 is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.20, 000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month to the petitioners from 1/11/2022 onwards, payable on or before 5th of each English Calendar month. The petitioner shall also pay arrears of Rs.1, 30, 000.00 @ Rs.10, 000.00 per
S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others
Eviction is necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
The Senior Citizens Act protects the rights of senior citizens against eviction and harassment by their children, affirming that children cannot assert property rights during the parents' lifetime.
Eviction of petitioners from property owned by senior citizens was impermissible without sufficient justification under the Senior Citizens Act, reinforcing that such decisions must prioritize the we....
The broad interpretation of 'property' under the Senior Citizens Act and the obligation of children to maintain senior citizens for them to lead a normal life.
Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act may order child's eviction from parent's property sans monetary maintenance claim if essential for senior citizen's residence and normal life, particularly after fo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.