Sunday 19 September 2021

Whether the father can seek eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his self acquired property under the Senior citizen Act to lead normal life?

The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act are required to be construed to take within its ambit the maintenance of the senior citizens which certainly would include all facets of maintenance as provided for in Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, which would aid the senior citizens to lead a normal life. This certainly includes the senior citizens asserting rights in respect of ‘property’, the meaning of which, is spelt out by section 2(f) of the Act to mean property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and which would include rights or interest in such property.

9. As provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4, the obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen, extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life, which would certainly take within its ambit a protection from any harassment and torture meted out by a son or relative by keeping himself on the premises of the senior citizens. The intention of the legislature to provide such protection to live a normal life to the parents is also reflected in the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 which provides that the obligation of the children to maintain his or her parents extends to the need of such parents either father or mother

or both, as the case may be so that such parents ‘may live a normal life’. Maintenance is also defined in Section 2(b) to include provision for food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment. Further Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the said Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the said Act.

10. It is thus clear that the intention of the legislature in making such

provisions in the interest of senior citizens, covers a wide spectrum of the senior citizens rights, which are fundamental to the their very

survival and/or livelihood at their old age. Certainly the Court’s

approach cannot be narrow and pedantic in applying the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act to the grievances of the senior citizens falling within the ambit of the said Act. A protection from harassment, exploitation, neglect, psychological disturbances, psychological needs, and all possible facets to safeguard their physical and mental health are required to be recognized when sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 4 clearly provide that the obligation of the children or relatives would be to cater to the needs of the senior citizens so that they ‘live a normal life’. The words “normal life” as used in these provisions would

possess a far deeper and wider concept, deriving its meaning and

having a bearing on the fundamental rights of livelihood as guaranteed and enjoyed by senior citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Certainly, this would include a right to prevent themselves from being harassed by children and by relatives. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2400 OF 2021

Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors. Vs Vinod Ramanlal Dalal 

CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 15 September, 2021.


1. This is a sad case where petitioner no.1 alongwith his wifepetitioner

no.2 and their daughter-petitioner no.3 have dragged his

parents-respondent nos.1 and 2, who are aged 90 years and 89 years

respectively, in protracted legal proceedings. It appears that as a last

resort, respondent nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “parents”)

invoked the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “the Senior Citizens Act”) on which

the impugned order has been passed by the Presiding Officer of the

Maintenance Tribunal (for short “the tribunal”) granting relief to the

parents, against which the petitioners have filed this petition. The

impugned order reads thus:-

“1. The application of the applicant is partly allowed.

2. The request for the maintenance amount has been

rejected.

3. The respondents shall vacate the said flat no.13/B, 5th

floor, Blue Sea Apartment, Near Juhu Koliwada, Juhu Road,

Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400049 within thirty days from the

receipt of this order and shall peacefully hand over its vacant

possession to the applicants.

4. In case of any breach of above orders by the respondents,

the applicants have to approach to the local Police Station.

Tahsildar Andheri with the help of Senior Police Inspector, Juhu

Police Station shall cause to implement these orders.

5. No order about the costs.

6. These orders have to be communicated to all concerned

parties.”

2. The record indicates that earlier respondent no. 2-mother was

required to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and in

such proceedings, protective orders dated 31.01.2016 came to be

passed in her favour by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra,

Mumbai, whereby the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were interalia prohibited

from committing any act of domestic violence as also petitioner no.1

son was directed to pay Rs.7000/- p.m. to the mother from the date of

application (6.2.2010) with a further direction that petitioner nos. 1

and 2 were restrained from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing

possession of the mother from the shared household.

3. The misery of the parents at such advance stage of their lives

however did not end as it appears from the parents’ case before the

Tribunal that petitioner no. 1 and 2 with a view to forcibly grab the flat

in which the parents are residing and who had permitted the

petitioners to reside along with them are harassing and torturing the

parents since many years. It does not appear to be in dispute that the

flat in question belonged to the father who gifted the flat in favour of

his two daughters (sisters of petitioner no. 1) by registered gift deed

dated 27 May, 2016. According to the parents, the daughters have

permitted the parents to occupy the flat considering their old age. It

appears that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 however were extremely

dissatisfied with the father gifting the flat to the daughters. According

to the parents, petitioner No.1-son, for selfish motives would not stop

torturing them. Petitioner no. 1 also instituted proceedings before the

Civil Court seeking declaration that the gift deed executed by the father

in favour of his daughters be declared illegal.

4. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners has limited

submissions to assail the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He

firstly submits that there are observations made by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate in the orders passed on the mother’s

application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act”) to the effect that the mother

would not be entitled for an order directing the son to be removed

from the shared household. Hence, according to him, once such

observation was made, it would be binding on both the parents and

hence the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order. The

second contention as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

to the effect that under section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, the

parents/senior citizens can seek a relief only qua the property owned

by such senior citizens. It is submitted that in the present case the flat

in question is not owned by the parents but has been gifted by the

father (respondent No.1) to his daughters, hence, the application of the

parents to seek any orders of maintenance qua the flat in question

could not have been granted by the Tribunal. It is his submission that

considering the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the

subsequent proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, and although

under both these proceedings orders are passed against the petitioners,

a harmonious approach is required to be adopted so that the petitioners

should not be removed from the flat in question. In support of his

contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of

this Court in Ritika Prashant Jasani vs. Anjani Niranjan Jasani & Ors.,

reported in 2021 SCC Online Bom 1802.

5. Per contra, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the parents has

submitted that this is a clear case where the parents at such advanced

stage of their lives are tortured and harassed by petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

He has argued on various such instances pointing out as to how

inhuman treatment has been meted out to the parents by petitioner no.

1 and his wife. According to Mr. Khandeparker, the only selfish motive

of petitioner nos.1 and 2 is to grab the flat which has already been

gifted by registered gift deed in favour of the two daughters who have

no objection whatsoever, that the parents continue to live in the said

flat during their life time. Mr.Khandeparker submits that it is

unthinkable that petitioner no. 1 and his wife despite having sufficient

independent properties intend to impose themselves on the parents

which itself is a harassment in the circumstances the parties stand. Mr.

Khandeparker would submit that Section 4 which provides for

maintenance of parents and senior citizens cannot be construed

narrowly, as according to him, when sub-section (1) uses the words

“out of the property owned by him” the definition of property as

defined in Section 2(f) would be required to be looked into which

defines “property of any kind, whether movable or immovable,

ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible and would include

interest in such property”. Mr. Khandeparker, thus, submits that the

petitioners’ case that merely because the flat has been gifted by the

father in favour of daughters would not be the property for the

purposes of Section 4 is totally an untenable interpretation. It is his

submission that the Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial legislation which

is intended to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance

and welfare of parents and senior citizens and protect the rights

guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Mr. Khandeparkar submits

that the record is replete with proceedings after proceedings instituted

against the old parents by the petitioners and purely with a greed to

grab the flat in question to which, according to him, neither of the

petitioners have any legal right. It is his contention that the tribunal

has appropriately considered the plight of the parents in exercising the

jurisdiction vested in it in passing the impugned order under the Senior

Citizens Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the record, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with any of the

contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners. At the outset, it

needs to be noted that it is not in dispute that the flat in question

originally belonged to the father (respondent no. 1) who thought it

appropriate to gift the same to his two daughters by the gift deed dated

27 May 2016. It clearly appears that the father has taken a conscious

decision on the backdrop of the mother moving a complaint before the

Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the D.V. Act which was

filed on 06.02.2010 against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and after it was

decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against petitioner

Nos.1 and 2 by his judgment dated 13.01.2016. The learned

Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that the mother along with her

husband were staying in terror and suffering at the hands of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is recorded that the case of the mother that they were also threatened to be killed had substance as seen from the evidence of the mother. It was also observed that there was strong possibility of the

parents being dispossessed from the household and hence protection

was required to be granted by restraining the petitioner no. 1 and 2

from dispossessing the mother. It was also observed that petitioner is

having a separate flat at New Mumbai as also he jointly held a

bungalow at Nerul. Also there was a vacant flat belonging to petitioner

no. 2 at Dahisar. The Metropolitan Magistrate also took into

consideration the police reports filed by respondent no. 1-father which

showed harassment even after filing of the said complaint under the

D.V. Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also rejected the

contention of petitioner no. 1 that the mother was fighting with her son

only on the instigation of outsiders by observing that no mother can

fight with her son only on the instigation of the outsiders. In

answering Issue no. 3 whether the mother was entitled to monetary or

other reliefs as provided under the Act, a stray observation as made by

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in paragraph 11 of the order is

sought to be capitalized by the petitioners. Such paragraph of the

order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is required to be noted,

which reads thus:

11. The applicant sought orders U/s.19(b) of the Act,

directing the respondents to remove themselves from the shared

household and U/s. 19(c) of the Act, to restrain from alienating or

disposing any portion of the shared household. The applicant

stated that respondents are having a separate flat at New Bombay.

Respondent no.1 jointly with her own a bungalow at Nerul. There

is vacant flat of respondent No.2’s father at Dahisar. While, she has

heredited. The property of father of respondent No.2 at Dahisar,

cannot be considered as alternative residence for the respondents.

On behalf of the applicants 7/12 extract of Gut No.28/2, 28/4/A,

28/4/B, 29 of Village Ganegaon, Chinchvali, Tal. Karjat, Dist.

Raigad was produced on record at Exh.27. Also these 7/12 extracts

cannot be considered as alternative residence for the respondents.

Respondent No.1, being son of the applicant and respondent No.2

being daughter-in-law of the applicant, have right to reside in the

shared household. The applicant is not entitled for the order

directing them to remove themselves from the shared household.”

7. In my opinion the above observation would not assist the

petitioners considering the operative order passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, which prohibited petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from committing any act of domestic violence and further restrained

petitioner no. 1 and 2 from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing

the possession of the mother from the shared household. It also cannot

be overlooked that the said order was passed on the sole complaint of

the mother to which the father-respondent no. 1 was not a party. It also

cannot be overlooked that the father had independent rights also along

with the mother to pursue independent proceedings under the Senior

Citizens Act which ultimately they have pursued on which the

impugned order has been passed by the tribunal directing that the

petitioners shall remove themselves from the flat.

8. There is a more fundamental question which needs to be

addressed, namely, whether the parents in the present facts were in any manner precluded from taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act to enforce the needs of such senior citizens to lead a normal life. The answer to this question would certainly be in the negative. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act are required to be construed to take within its ambit the maintenance of the senior citizens which certainly would include all facets of maintenance as provided for in Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, which would aid the senior citizens to lead a normal life. This certainly includes the senior citizens asserting rights in respect of ‘property’, the meaning of which, is spelt out by section 2(f) of the Act to mean property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and which would include rights or interest in such property.

9. As provided in sub-section (2) of Section 4, the obligation of the

children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen,

extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a

normal life, which would certainly take within its ambit a protection

from any harassment and torture meted out by a son or relative by

keeping himself on the premises of the senior citizens. The intention of

the legislature to provide such protection to live a normal life to the

parents is also reflected in the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section

4 which provides that the obligation of the children to maintain his or

her parents extends to the need of such parents either father or mother

or both, as the case may be so that such parents ‘may live a normal life’.

Maintenance is also defined in Section 2(b) to include provision for

food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment. Further

Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act gives an overriding effect to the

provisions of the said Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent

therewith contained in any enactment other than the said Act.

10. It is thus clear that the intention of the legislature in making such

provisions in the interest of senior citizens, covers a wide spectrum of

the senior citizens rights, which are fundamental to the their very

survival and/or livelihood at their old age. Certainly the Court’s

approach cannot be narrow and pedantic in applying the provisions of

the Senior Citizens Act to the grievances of the senior citizens falling


within the ambit of the said Act. A protection from harassment,

exploitation, neglect, psychological disturbances, psychological needs,

and all possible facets to safeguard their physical and mental health are

required to be recognized when sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of

Section 4 clearly provide that the obligation of the children or relatives

would be to cater to the needs of the senior citizens so that they ‘live a

normal life’. The words “normal life” as used in these provisions would

possess a far deeper and wider concept, deriving its meaning and

having a bearing on the fundamental rights of livelihood as guaranteed

and enjoyed by senior citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Certainly, this would include a right to prevent themselves from being

harassed by children and by relatives. This is also clearly borne out by

the preamble to the Senior Citizens Act which reads thus:-

“An act to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance

and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and

recognised under the Constitution and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto.”

11. The statement of object and reasons in paragraph 3(c) reflects

the intention behind the legislation also to provide for

institutionalization of the suitable mechanism for protection of life and

property of older persons. Thus, it was certainly appropriate and

necessary for the parents in the facts of the present case to invoke the

provisions of the Senior Citizens Act to seek a relief against the

petitioners qua their property namely the flat in their possession.

12. This is a classic case where the petitioner nos.1 and 2 intend to

prevent the parents from leading a normal life at their old age of about

90 years. The several legal proceedings between the parties are the

evidence of the feeling of torture and harassment by the parents. The

property in question is not an ancestral property on which the

petitioner no.1 can claim any legal right so as to keep himself on such

property alongwith his family and foist themselves on the parents

against their wishes by remaining on the property without any legal

rights. This itself is a harassment and/or defeating the parents right to

lead a normal life.

13. The tribunal in the impugned order has rightly recognized the

rights of the parents on the property, namely the flat in question, in

respect of which on the petitioners’ own showing there is not a

semblance of any right vested in them.

14. Before parting and having noticed that this is a case where the

old parents are suffering at the hands of petitioner no.1 the only son

and petitioner no.2 – daughter-in-law, it appears that there is certainly

some element of truth in the popular saying that “Daughters are

daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married” albeit there

would surely be exemplary exceptions. Be that as it may, the present

case is a sad story of desperate parents who intend to be in peace at

such advanced stage in life. Whether such bare minimum expectations

and requirement should also be deprived to them by an affluent son, is

a thought which the petitioners need to ponder on. Petitioner no.1

appears to be totally blinded in discharging his obligations to cater to

his old and needy parents and on the contrary has dragged them into

litigation. The vehemence with which arguments were advanced by

the learned Counsel for the petitioners also bears testimony to the

approach of the petitioners. It is painful to conceive that whatever are

the relations between the son and the parents, should the son disown

his old aged parents for material gains ? This has become more clear

from what Mr.Khandeparkar has said, that recently father was required

to be hospitalized. In the entire vehemence of the submissions

advanced on the flat, not a whisper was uttered on behalf of the

petitioners on any attention the petitioners would like to provide to the

father’s medical need. I am certainly wrong in presuming such

expectations from petitioner nos.1 and 2 considering their relations

with the parents.

15. Lastly, the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners

relying on the decision in Ritika Prashant Jasani’s case needs to be

outrightly rejected, inasmuch as, the question which fell for

consideration of the Court in such case was as to whether the tribunal

under the Senior Citizens Act could evict a person from the tenement

in which he has ownership rights. In the said case the property/ flat in

question was the ancestral property having joint rights and it is in such

context the right to reside in a shared household under the D.V.Act was

examined by the Court. In the present case admittedly the property/

flat in question is not an ancestral property on which the petitioner

no.1 can lay any claim. It was the property of the father (respondent

no.1) who had gifted it to his daughters within his own legal rights.

Moreover, paragraph 23 of the decision in Ritika Prashant Jasani’s case

goes completely contrary to the contention as urged on behalf of the

petitioners, wherein the Division Bench has observed thus:

“23. At this stage, we may mention that in Smt.S.Vanitha

(supra), Supreme Court has taken the view that the Tribunal

under the 2007 Act may have the authority to order an eviction

if it is necessary and expedient to ensure maintenance and

protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in other

words, would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to

maintenance and protection. However, this remedy can be

granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the

dispute.”

It is clear that in the present case the petitioners cannot set up

any competing claim in the absence of any legal right whatsoever, in

respect of the flat in question.

16. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is wholly without

any merit. It deserves to be rejected summarily. It is accordingly

rejected.

17. The petitioners are directed to vacate the flat in question

alongwith his family members within a period of ten days from today,

failing which as ordered by the tribunal in the impugned order, the

respondents shall be evicted with the help of the police.

18. Ordered accordingly.

19. No costs.

20. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for a stay

of this order. Considering that the impugned order itself is dated 21

October 2020 and the petitioners have continued to reside in the flat to

the detriment of the parents, the request for stay would add to the

agony and pain of the parents. The request, therefore, cannot be

accepted and is rejected.

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.)

(Corrected as per the speaking to minutes of order dated 16 September, 2021)


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment