Protection of senior citizens from harassment is essential, and inquiries must ensure their safety and rights under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT: (per Mr. G. Narendar C.J.

On 06.03.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

“The petitioner is a lady aged about 65 years i.e. a senior citizen and is before this Court praying for protection from the third respondent; that, the petitioner is a person, who would be entitled to the benefits accruing under the Senior Citizens Act.

4. In that view of the matter, we direct the S.D.M. Roorkee, District Haridwar to enquire with the petitioner and the third respondent and warn respondent nos.4 to 7 of consequences. If the allegations of harassment and threat to life and personal liberty of the petitioner are proved. S.D.M. Roorkee, District Haridwar shall submit a report to this Court.

5. Put up on 17.03.2025.

6. The SDM, Roorkee shall positively submit his report by then.

7. A copy of this order be forwarded to S.D.M. Roorkee by email and a free copy of this order be furnished to Deputy Advocate General for the State.”

2. Today, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit a report by the Sub-District Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The report reads as under:-

“The inquiry committee today on 15.03.2025 took the statements of the petitioner Smt. Sumitra and the petitioner's daughter-in-law Smt. Babli wife Jitendra and Smt. Babli's son Siddhant Tomar and daughter Jaya Tomar and her sister-in-law Smt. Babita and inquired in relation to the case in question. The report of the inquiry committee in the case in question is as follows, in which it is mentioned that- From the statements and inquiries of all the above, it has come to light that all of them are members of one family and the children of Jitendra's wife Smt. Babli are angry with her living with her brother-in-law Virendra and they do not want to live with their mother and are currently studying in Dehradun and live with their grandmother Smt. Sumitra and come and go and the house which they got from their grandfather, they want Babli to vacate it. Mrs. Babli is also upset with the two children staying with Mrs. Sumitra and she thinks that Mrs. Sumitra Devi has turned my children against me and she is spreading false propaganda against me in the society. Regarding this matter.

There is a dispute between Mrs. Sumitra and Mrs. Babli and there is also a dispute between them regarding the division of property. The investigation committee has warned Mrs. Babti in the above case in writing and instructed Mrs. Babli not to abuse her mother-in-law Mrs. Sumitra mentally or physically and not to harm her life safety in any way. She should not fight or quarrel in any way, if she is found to be doing so, she will herself be responsible for all kinds of legal action and Mrs. Sumitra Devi has also been told that she can also obtain relief by submitting an application under the Parents and Maintenance Act 2007 in this office / court regarding life safety. A photocopy of the attendance letter, statement, Aadhaar card, donation letter and written warning is attached with the said investigation report.

In this regard, a report was sought from the Deputy Superintendent of Police through this office's letter number- 1011/Ahlmad (Fa.) dated 11.03.2025. Deputy Superintendent of Police Roorkee has informed through his report dated 12.03.2025 that the petitioner has sought protection in connection with mental harassment and death threats to his daughter-in-law Babli wife Jitendra. In this regard, it has been mentioned in the said report that due to the division of property between the petitioner and Babli and the differences between the children of the opposite party Babli, son and daughter, the opposite party Babli is harassing and troubling the petitioner. After talking to the petitioner Mrs. Sumitra and the opposite party Babli, the opposite party Babli was strictly instructed in the above regard that both the children of the opposite party Babli are adults and can take care of themselves. The children of the opposite party want to live with the petitioner without a