JUDGMENT

Order dated 11.7.2022 of the Maintenance Tribunal, Ext.P8 imposing certain conditions on the petitioner being daughter in law of the respondent No.2 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and 3rd respondent ie., her husband, Zakkir Hussain was performed on 28.5.2005. The 3rd respondent, the husband of the petitioner was in possession and ownership of 9.93 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.285/3-1-1 of Kottungal Village as per the documents bearing No.2052 of 2010 of SRO, Mallappally along with the house. The house, at the time of the marriage, was not in a habitable state. Therefore after the marriage the petitioner along with the 3rd respondent started residing in the house of the elder brother of the 3rd respondent. After 40 days of the marriage, the 3rd respondent, her husband went abroad and thereafter did not return for considerable period, which impelled the petitioner to return to her parental home on account of the alleged mental and physical atrocities from the part of the 2nd respondent and wife of brother in law. After a period of 2 years as and when the 3rd respondent returned to India, the petitioner by making use of 50 sovereigns of gold which was gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage, started the construction of a house in the property belonged to the 3rd respondent. Before the completion of construction, 3rd respondent returned to gulf. In the meanwhile, two children were also born out of the wedlock. The petitioner sold 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments for completing the construction and spent another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which she had obtained from her parents as her share in the parental property. Since there was perpetual harassment at the hands of the 2nd respondent, petitioner preferred MC No.65/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the mother in law and the husband, respondent No.2 and 3. Another petition under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act was also filed seeking interim maintenance and also for restraint order against the 3rd respondent from alienating the shared house hold. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 17.9.2019 directed the 3rd respondent to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the petitioner per month, Ext.P2.

3. Husband of the petitioner suffered a settlement deed dated 18.10.2019 of SRO Mallappilly in favour of the 2nd respondent, transferring the property comprised in Sy.No.285/3-1-

1 of Kottungal Village in favour of the 2nd respondent to overcome the order Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent, mother in law of the petitioner, filed a civil suit OS No.356 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court for permanent injunction against the forcible eviction from the scheduled property. The trial court allowed the interim application and protected the possession of the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that prior to the institution of the civil suit, respondent No.2 was residing with her elder son in the property and as a counter blast to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act preferred a petition in 2022 before the competent authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The tribunal without taking into consideration, definition of 2(a) of the Act pertaining to the family member ordered protecting the interest of the 2nd respondent not to forcibly evict, disturb or cause any hindrance. Once the proceedings are already in the trial court, the petition under the Provisions of 2007 Act was not maintainable. The petitioner is a daughter in law and do not fall within the definition of Children in view of the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Sheetal Devang Shah v. Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Others (2022 SCC online Bom 1068 : (2022) 4 RCR (Civil)

388