Bombay HC: Senior citizen can not use senior citizens Act to evict daughter in law from residence granted to her as per domestic violence Act

Senior Citizens - Eviction of daughter-in-law - Legality of - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act of 2007) - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) - Present petition filed to challenge orders of Sub Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, which rejected petitioner's application for eviction of his daughter-in-law from "Writ House" - Whether proceedings under Act of 2007 can be used to circumvent a subsisting residence protection order granted under D.V. Act - Held, petitioner's attempt to evict daughter-in-law and minor granddaughters via summary procedure under Act of 2007 was a mala fide effort to bypass judicial protection orders already upheld by High Court - Court observed that petitioner, who owns multiple properties, fabricated a narrative of homelessness to justify eviction - Court held that provisions of Act of 2007 cannot be weaponized to defeat a woman's right to residence in a shared household under D.V. Act - Harmonious construction of both statutes is required, and Act of 2007 cannot be used as a "proxy" to facilitate marital disputes or harass protected parties - Impugned orders of lower authorities were found to be legally sound and justified - Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 11433 of 2023

Decided On: 13.08.2026

Devba Pauladsing Girase Vs. Kavita Himmatsing Girase and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5559/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: What would be effect of lawful revocation of the original gift deed under Senior Citizen Act?

Insofar as the Petitioner’s contention that he has subsequently

transferred the subject property in favour of his wife is concerned, it

is evident that any such transfer is purely derivative of the petitioner’s title. Upon lawful revocation of the original gift deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the very basis of the petitioner’s title stands divested, and consequently, any transfer effected by him would not, prima facie, create an indefeasible or superior right in favour of the transferee. At the same time, since the petitioner’s wife is not a party to the present proceedings, this Court refrains from rendering any conclusive adjudication upon her rights, if any, and leaves it open for her to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law. {Para 26}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12120 OF 2025

Shri. Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre, Vs  Smt. Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre,

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 6th MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:3563

Print Page

Bombay HC: Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Invoked By One Senior Citizen Against Another To Recover Possession Of Premises

After having considered the submissions canvassed by the

learned counsel appearing for parties, it is seen that Respondent

No.2 filed proceedings under the Act for seeking eviction of the

Petitioners from the premises located on first floor of the slum

structure. It is an undoubted position that Respondent No.2

herself resides in the ground floor premises and her real grouse

is that the Petitioners have encroached upon the first floor

premises of the structure. This clearly appears to be proceedings

for recovery of possession of first floor premises. which in my

view cannot be filed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The

proceedings appear to my mind in the nature of suit for recovery

of possession of first floor premises, which could not have been

entertained and decided by the Tribunal. To make the case of

Respondent No.2 worse, Petitioner No.1 is her sister and also a

senior citizen. Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be

invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises

from another senior citizen. Petitioner No.1 is admittedly not

supposed to maintain Respondent No.2. Therefore jurisdiction of

the Tribunal could not have been invoked to seek recovery of

possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners. In

Summary Inquiry conducted by the Tribunal, complicated

questions about right of an occupier to possess first floor

premises cannot be adjudicated. Such adjudication can be

undertaken only before a Civil Court. In my view therefore, the

present case involves gross abuse of jurisdiction of the Tribunal

which is utilized for the purpose of securing possession of first

floor premises from one senior citizen by another senior citizen.

{Para 4}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.882 OF 2024

Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr.  V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 10 MARCH 2025.

Citation:2025:BHC-AS:11709

Print Page

Can a Senior citizen get back his property if his children refuse to maintain him if he had unconditionally transferred his property to them?

The Tribunal exercises important jurisdiction Under Section 23 of the 2007 Act which reads thus:

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.-- (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression "by way of gift or otherwise". For attracting Sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

a. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and

b. the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.

14. Careful perusal of the petition Under Section 23 filed by Respondent No. 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of Respondent No. 1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to Respondent No. 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the Appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor - senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of Sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by Respondent No. 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.

15. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1. Even in the counter, it is not pleaded that the release was subject to such a condition. It is merely pleaded that the Appellant had no intention to take care of her mother. Thus, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be sustained as the twin conditions incorporated in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 were not satisfied. Unfortunately, the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the case at all.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2021

Decided On: 06.12.2022

 Sudesh Chhikara  Vs.  Ramti Devi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1581/2022

Print Page

Delhi high court: Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Adjudicate On Claims of Property Ownership

 The Court notes that all that the petitioners have essentially done in those proceedings was to assert a claim of ownership in the property in question. Those issues cannot possibly form subject matter of consideration or adjudication in proceedings under the 2007 Act. Ultimately the authorities administering the said enactment have to bear in mind and accord primacy to the issues of ill treatment of the senior citizens and their right to a

secured existence. The forums constituted under the 2007 Act are neither obliged nor required to undertake a trial with respect to the civil and property rights that may be claimed by the warring factions. Those issues must be ultimately left to be conclusively adjudicated by the competent civil courts. In proceedings initiated under the 2007 Act, the authorities would upon finding that the senior citizens can validly claim an interest in the

property, proceed ahead and evaluate steps that would be warranted to be taken in order to safeguard and secure their interest.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 13825/2022

ANMOL AND ANOTHER Vs SUSHILA .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Dated:  26.09.2022

Print Page

Whether a person who is not an Indian citizen can file petition under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?

The passport of respondent No.2 is produced at Annexure-B. It shows that respondent No.2–Carobina Ferrao Guerin is a British citizen. Her photograph is also affixed to the passport. It is therefore evident that she is not an Indian citizen as the Constitution of India does not provide for dual citizenship. Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Senior Citizen’ and it

reads as follows:

“h. "senior citizen" means any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above;”

4. It is evident that one of the essential elements

for being designated a ‘Senior Citizen’ for the purposes of

the Act is the person being an Indian citizen. The passport

at Annexure-B clearly shows that respondent No.2 at whose

instance proceedings has been initiated by the respondent

No.1, is not an Indian citizen. In that view of the matter,

respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate the

proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, same is liable to

be quashed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

 MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO Vs ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION,

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

DATED: 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

Print Page

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.

Print Page

Whether any affected party other than a senior citizen can file an appeal under the Senior Citizen Act?

  The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the writ petition ought to be entertained by this Court, as an appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) can only be filed by a senior citizen. Ms. Tandon, ld. Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order is appealable to the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 22 (3)(4) of the Rules, as amended on 19th December, 2016. Accordingly, she submits that the Petitioner be allowed to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

12. The abovementioned judgments clarify that any `affected person’ can prefer the appeal and not just a senior citizen or parent. The view taken by this Court is by following the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864. The relevant observations are set out below:

“An appeal is envisaged “against the order of the Tribunal”. This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent “aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal”. This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount. Now it can hardly be envisaged that in an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent, there could be a question of absence of stay. Such absence of stay was only envisaged where the appeal is preferred by a children or relative. It is that eventuality the proviso deals with. The proviso is, thus, consistent with what has been set out in Section 15 of the said Act.

We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 5th March, 2021

W.P.(C) 2895/2021, CM APPLs. 8722/2021 & 8723/2021

RAKHI SHARMA Vs THE STATE & ORS.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Dated: MARCH 5, 2021

Print Page

Whether Section 23 of senior citizen Act is attracted If there was no Condition Of Providing Maintenance In Transfer Deed?

This Court in Radhamani and others v. State of

Kerala (2016 (1) KHC 9) held that there is no requirement

under law that there should be a written stipulation in the

deed to the effect that the transferee would maintain the

transferor. It is appropriate to refer the relevant

paragraphs in the above judgment which read thus :

“11. It is to be noted that the special scheme in

terms of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could declare

certain transfer as void, taking note of the fact

that by taking advantage of the emotionally

dependent senior citizens, relatives grab the

property on the pretext of providing emotional

support. Therefore, legislature thought such

transaction could be declared as void as the

conduct leading to transaction was based on malice

or fraud. Therefore,condition referred in Section

23 has to be understood based on the conduct of

the transferee and not with reference to the

specific stipulation in the deed of transfer.”

Thus this Court is of the view that it is not necessary

that there should be a specific recital or stipulation as a

condition in the deed of transfer itself. This condition

mentioned in Section 23 is only referable as a conduct of

the transferee, prior to and after execution of the deed of

transfer.

14. In the light of the judgment in Radhamani's case,

the scope of enquiry in a matter related under Section 23,

must be related and confined to the circumstances under

which the document was executed. In the light of

Radhamani’s judgment, the Tribunal has to examine the

circumstances under which the deed was executed. It is also

necessary to find out whether senior citizen expected that

the transferee would provide amenities and physical needs to

the transferer at the time of transfer. There may not be

any written document in this regard. Normally this has to

be concluded from human conduct and nature of relationship

and circumstances in which such deed was executed. Strict

pleadings or evidence cannot be insisted in such

proceedings. It is to be noted that law only contemplates

breach on the part of the transferee in providing amenities

and physical needs to the transferor. It does not stipulate

that the condition of providing maintenance should be part

of such transfer. If love and affection was the

circumstances for executing such deed, any failure on the

part of the transferee to provide amenities and physical

needs to the transferor would attract the grounds for

revocation under Section 23. Therefore, any emotional

detachment or creation of an atmosphere as opposed to the

one demanded by a senior citizen would be sufficient to

attract Section 23.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

WP(C).No.14802 OF 2019(A)

G.S.MANJU Vs  K.N.GOPI @ GOPINATHAN PILLAI

 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

Dated:10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

Print Page

Whether daughter in law is legal heir of senior citizen if her husband is alive?

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to many decisions of this Court to contend that the daughter-in-law has no right to live in the house of the father-in-law but all these decisions are not applicable at all to the facts and circumstances of this case because both father and son are conniving with each other for seeking eviction of respondent No. 3, who is also having a small girl child, from the house in question by using the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, Rules and the Action Plan in which it is categorically provided that the District Magistrate shall have the power only to dispossess a son, daughter or legal heir. The Act does not define son, daughter or legal heir rather it defined only children and relative but according to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a husband is alive, the daughter-in-law would not fall within the definition of legal heir either in Class 1 or Class II of the Schedule. In this regard, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in the cases of Ranjit Kaur (Supra), Ram Saroop Walia (Supra) and Amar Chand Sharma and another (Supra) would come to the rescue of respondent No. 3 and for this Court to form an opinion that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act was not maintainable because the petitioner has only tried to evict his daughter-in-law from the house in dispute.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CWP Nos. 5722 and 6917 of 2017

Decided On: 06.08.2018

Vimaljit Singh Vs  District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

Citation:AIR 2018 P &H 185

Print Page

Whether maintenance tribunal can grant eviction of son from property of senior citizen even if no maintenance is claimed by him?

38. There is nothing in the language or purported intent of Section 23 of the Act 2007 to indicate that the Tribunal has the power to declare a transfer of property void if and only if the senior citizen is seeking maintenance under the Act from the opposite party. 
39. In Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court passed an eviction order under the Act, 2007 where not only no maintenance had been sought by the senior citizen, but in fact the senior citizen had volunteered to pay Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to his son.

40. Consequently, Section 4 and Section 23 are separate and distinct remedies and the claim for maintenance is not a condition precedent for passing an eviction order under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: October 03, 2018 

LPA 205/2017, CM No. 11669/2017

SUNNY PAUL VsSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI 

 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

Print Page

Whether Senior citizens are entitled to institute application seeking eviction of son/ daughter or other legal heir?

 In Sachin v. Jhabbu Lal, whilst disposing off RSA No. 136/2016 and CM No. 19123/2016, another Single Judge of this Court succinctly observed as follows:—

“Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.”

17. The subject Rules amended on 19.12.2016 provide as follows:—

“(3)(1) Procedure for eviction from property/residential building of Senior Citizen/Parents -

(i) A senior citizen may make an application before the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate(DM) of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his self acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrates for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application.

(iii) The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall immediately submit its report to the Deputy Commissioner/DM for final orders within 21 days from the date of receipt of the complaint/application.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/DM during summary proceedings for the protection of senior citizen parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of the said Act 2007. If the Deputy Commissioner/DM is of opinion that any son or daughter or legal heir of a senior citizen/parents is not maintaining the senior citizen and ill treating him and yet is occupying the self acquired property of the senior citizen, and that they should be evicted, the Deputy Commissioner/DM shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them/him/her.

(v) The notice shall-

(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and

(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the property/premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issued thereof.

(2) Eviction Order from property/residential building of Senior Citizens/Parent.-

(i) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance to the notice and any evidence he/she may produce in support of the same and after giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Deputy Commissioner/DM is satisfied that the eviction order needs to be made, the Deputy Commissioner/DM may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the property/residential building shall be vacated;

(3) Enforcement of Orders,

(i) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days from the date of its issue, the Deputy Commissioner/DM or any other officer duly authorized by the Deputy Commissioner/DM in this behalf may evict that person from the premises in question and take possession;

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall have powers to enforce the eviction orders through Police and the Dy. Commissioner of Police concerned shall be bound to carry out execution of the eviction order.

(iii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM will further handover the property/premises in question to the concerned Senior Citizen.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall forward monthly report of such cases to the Social Welfare Department by 7th of the following month.”

18. A plain reading of the above extracted Rules clearly reflect that a senior citizen is entitled to institute an application seeking eviction of his son, daughter or other legal heir from his self-acquired property on the ground of ill-treatment and non-maintenance.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma, JJ.)

Shadab Khairi & Anr. v.The State & Ors. .…. 

LPA 783/2017, CAV 1058/2017, 

Decided on February 22, 2018

Print Page

When maintenance tribunal should declare transfer of property void?

The Petitioner is placing implicit reliance on the MOU

which does not have any probative value taking into consideration the

circumstances, in which it was executed.  The Act of 2007 confers on

the   maintenance   tribunal   express   power   to   declare   a   transfer   of

property void at the option of the transferor.  Under section 23 of the

said Act, it is to be presumed  that the intent of the legislature is to

empower the maintenance tribunal to pass effective and meaningful

orders including   consequential directions to give effect to the said

order.  The Act empowers  the tribunal to grant speedy  consequential

relief.  In the present case, although the interim relief was vacated,

the   Petitioner   and   Respondent   No.3   has   continued   to   harass   the

parents   and   therefore,   it   is   necessary   to   evict   the   Petitioner   and

Respondent No. 3 from the said bungalow i.e. i.e.  Girnar Bungalow,

Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi, District Pune. 

43 It is in these circumstances that the Writ Petition being

sans merits stands dismissed on the following terms:

(i) The Order passed by the Learned Sub­Divisional Officer,

Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   and   confirmed   by   the   learned

Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016, Pune is

hereby  maintained.

(ii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   to   pay   Rs.

2,000/­ each to the parents/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1st

August, 2017.  

(iii) The   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent   No.   3   are   further

directed     to   vacate   the   premises   of   bungalow   i.e.     Girnar

Bungalow, Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi,

District Pune within two weeks from the date of  passing of this

order.  

(iv) In the eventuality  that the Petitioner and Respondent No.

3  do not vacate the premises of above bungalow voluntarily the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to seek   police aid to

execute the present order.  

(v) The Petitioner to pay cost   of Rs. 25,000/­ towards the

cost of litigation to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly within 2

weeks from today.   The amount to be deposited before the

Tribunal, Pune constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which shall not be

included in the maintenance amount.

(vi) The Tribunal at Pune is hereby directed to implement and

execute   the   Order   dated   20/2/2016   passed   by   the   Sub

Divisional   Officer,   Pune   in   Criminal/SR/2/2015   within   two

weeks from today.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1791  OF 2016

Shri Santosh Surendra Patil.  V Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & ors. ..

­­­

CORAM :  SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J

     

 PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 23, 2017

Print Page

Whether application U/S 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is maintainable against person who is not relative of senior citizen?

In view of the above, an application under Section 22 of the Act
would be maintainable against any person irrespective of the fact whether
the respondent in the application falls within the category of persons as
defined in any of the definitions as provided for in Section 2 of the Act or
otherwise. The only rider is that the applicant should be a senior citizen as
defined in Section 2(h) i.e. a citizen of India, who has attained the age of 60
years or above and further as defined in Section 2 (f), he/she has a property
of any kind whether movable or immovable or self acquired, tangible or
intangible and includes rights and interest in such property. Accordingly, it
cannot be said that the application preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3
against the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law, would not be maintainable
under Section 22 of the Act.Hence answer to the first question is that the application
under Section 22 of the Act filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 being senior
citizens is maintainable
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15477 OF 2014 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 29, 2015
Balbir Kaur
V
Presiding Officer-cum-S.D.M. of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior
Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others

CORAM:- MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Citation;AIR 2016 Punjab and Haryana 4

Print Page