Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Article 226 on behalf of petitioners seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent 1 to provide adequate security to the petitioners and to also take appropriate action against respondents 2 and 3, and to direct respondent 2 and 3 to vacate the house of the petitioners. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., directed the Tribunal in question to expeditiously resolve the complaint of the petitioners within a period of one month.
The petitioners in this case are senior citizens, aged about 73 and 69 years old, resided in a property in North Delhi, owned by petitioner 2 and purchased on 30-07-2018. The petitioners alleged that their daughter-in-law (respondent 2) and son (respondent 3) had physically abused, threatened, and unlawfully evicted them from their own house. Despite filing complaints with the police and the District Magistrate, no action had been taken, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition seeking protection, registration of an FIR against the respondents, and eviction from their property.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they were entitled to protection under the law as senior citizens facing abuse and eviction from their own property. He highlighted the multiple complaints filed with the authorities, including the police and the District Magistrate, which had gone unanswered. Additionally, their right to a safe and dignified living environment was emphasized, urging the court to intervene and provide them with the necessary relief, including eviction of the respondents from their property. Counsel for State opposed the petition, arguing that similar relief had been sought from the District Magistrate and was pending adjudication. The State contended the petition was not maintainable given the ongoing proceedings before the District Magistrate. Moreover, the State asserted that adequate security measures had been provided to the petitioners, and there was no need for further intervention by the court.
The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the submissions presented by both parties. It noted the grave allegations made by the petitioners regarding the abuse and eviction they had suffered at the hands of their own family members. The Court also observed the failure of the authorities to take timely action on the complaints filed by the petitioners, despite the serious nature of the allegations. Furthermore, the Court examined the relevant provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, under which the petitioners sought relief. It emphasized the overarching objective of these laws to safeguard the rights and well-being of senior citizens and ensure their protection from abuse and neglect.
The Court remarked that “It is unacceptable that in the year 2024, the present petitioners are still awaiting resolution of their problems. Such delays only exacerbate the already profound sense of anguish and uncertainty experienced by senior citizens, highlighting the urgent need for reform and a renewed commitment to prioritizing the well-being and rights of our elderly citizens.”
“In such scenario, elderly people find themselves in a position where they are aggrieved by their own children, kith or kin. When these senior citizens muster the courage to seek recourse to their grievances by approaching the relevant authorities a delayed response by them further adds to their agony”
The Court also remarked that “In many instances, intervention from the courts has been required to expedite the resolution of cases as mandated by law. It’s necessary for them to recognize the delicate circumstances of many elderly individuals who seek justice, lest their hopes and wishes remain unfulfilled in their lifetimes”
Thus, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to protection and relief under the law. It directed the concerned authorities to register an FIR against the respondents if necessary and expedite the eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioners before the District Magistrate. The Court emphasized the importance of timely resolution of cases involving senior citizens and underscored the need for swift action to uphold their rights and dignity.
Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to the authorities to take necessary steps to address the grievances of the petitioners and ensure their protection and well-being in accordance with the law.
[Shakuntla Devi v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1893, decided on 12-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rakesh Dhingra, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Jatin and Mr. Aashish Chojar, Advocates and SI Deepak Kumar, P.S. Burari. Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC) for R-2 along with R-2.
Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate (DHCLSC) and Mr. Shoaib Ansari, Advocate for R-3
