SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Telangana) 12

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P. Naveen Rao, J.
V. Siva Lakshmi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 42210 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, Adv.

Point of Law :
Cumulative reading of definition of parent and senior citizen as defined in clauses (d) and (h) of Section 2, it is apparent that irrespective of age, a parent is a senior citizen and is entitled to various protections provided by the Act.

Headnote:

T.S. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2011- Rule 21 (1) & (2) (v) - Criminal intimidation - Harassment and Try to Murder - Police protection - Put her in possession of the flat - Whether petitioner is entitled to protection under Act, 2007 and Rules made there under to put her back in possession of concerned flat with Police protection - A cumulative reading of definition of parent and senior citizen as defined in clauses (d) and (h) of Section 2, it is apparent that irrespective of age, a parent is a senior citizen and is entitled to various protections provided by the Act.

Facts of the case: Petitioner claims to be exclusive owner of Flat - Petitioner claims that she filed complaint with Station House Officer, alleging that her son and daughter-in-law harassed her, threw her from her flat, indulged in criminal intimidation, and tried to kill her - She filed further complaint levelling same allegations - She also complained that she was forcibly thrown out of her flat and requested Police to give Police protection to put her back in possession and to book a criminal case against her son and daughter-in-law as requested earlier - Alleging that in spite of her complaints, no action is taken and that she was not put back in possession of her flat with Police protection, she lodged complaint with Commissioner of Police, requesting Commissioner to direct Station House Officer to book a criminal case against her son and daughter-in-law, to punish them and to give Police protection to go back to her flat.

Finding of the court: It is also specifically averred in their counter-affidavit - Said stand is appreciated - It is hoped and expected that there would not be any resistance from them to put petitioner in possession of subject property - Written instructions furnished to learned Government Pleader would disclose that though crime was registered on complaint filed by petitioner, second limb of her petition was not considered - In terms of the provisions of Act, and Rules, as analyzed above, Police have to grant the protection sought by petitioner.

Result: Writ Petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1, 3 to 5, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for 2nd respondent, and Sri B. Jithender learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

2. Petitioner claims to be the exclusive owner of Flat No.201, Sri Nilayam, Addagutta, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally. Petitioner claims that she filed complaint on 31.10.2018 with the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Housing Board Police Station alleging that her son and daughter-in-law harassed her, threw her from her flat, indulged in criminal intimidation, and tried to kill her. She filed further complaint on 08.11.2018 levelling same allegations. She also complained that she was forcibly thrown out of her flat and requested the Police to give Police protection to put her back in possession and to book a criminal case against her son and daughter-in-law as requested earlier. Alleging that in spite of her complaints, no action is taken and that she was not put back in possession of her flat with Police protection, she lodged complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Metropolitan Police on 12.11.2018 requesting the Commissioner to direct the Station House Officer of Kukatpalli Housing Board Police Station to book a criminal case against her son and daughter-in-law, to punish them and to give Police protection to go back to her flat. On the same day, she also filed complaint with the District Collector to grant protection to life and property as per Chapter-V of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'Act, 2007').

3. In this Writ Petition, petitioner prays, 1) to declare the action of respondent-Police in not registering two separate crimes based on the complaints lodged by the petitioner on 31.10.2018 and 08.11.2018; and 2) to grant Police protection under the Act, 2007 to put her in possession of the flat.

4. With reference to the crime reported by the petitioner on 31.10.2018, learned Government Pleader informed the Court that on 24.11.2018 Crime No.1037 of 2018 was registered in Kukatpally Housing Board Police Station, and investigation is in progress. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 7, they admitted the fact of registering of crime. In view of the said statements, first limb of the grievance of petitioner is stood answered.

5. According to respondents 6 & 7, properties in issue are joint family properties. Land was purchased by the

father of 6th respondent, but registered in the name of his mother, and during his life time, his father developed the plot into apartment building, wherein six flats have fallen to the share of the family; out of which two flats were sold and four flats remained with the family; joint family consists of petitioner and her two sons.

6. Whether petitioner is the sole owner of the flat, whether it is a joint family property, and whether there is no manner of right vested in 6th respondent on the flat, are matters which are civil in nature, and the parties have to work out their remedies and Court is not expressing any opinion on the same.

7. The only issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to protection under the Act, 2007 and the Rules made there under to put her back in possession of the concerned flat with Police protection.

8. On the claim of petitioner to grant protection to her and to put her back in possession of the flat, objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 and learned Government Pleader in unison is as petitioner is not senior citizen, the provisions of the Act, 2007 are not applicable and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit under Rule 21 (1) & (2) (v) of the T.S. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2011 (for short, 'Rules 2011').

9. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the Act is a comprehensive enactment granting protection to parents as well as senior ci



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top