Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: In a matter wherein, the parents sought eviction of their son, Rohit B. Deo, J., expressed that,

“In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a ‘swindler’ or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance.”

The petitioners were the son and daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3 and assailed the order rendered by the Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate the self-acquired residential house of the respondents 2 and 3.

Petitioners’ submission was that the Act does not envisage a remedy of eviction, and the Tribunal committed a jurisdiction error in virtually treating the application under Section 5 of the Act as a suit for eviction.

Respondents contended that they had constructed a residential house from self-earning and that petitioner 1 illegally and forcibly took possession of part of the said house and was conducting himself in a manner as would pose a serious threat to the safety and security of respondents 2 and 3.

Further, the respondents submitted that if the petitioners vacate the portion illegally occupied, the said portion can be let out and the rental income would enable the respondents 2 and 3 to better maintain themselves.

Significantly, respondents 2 and 3 accused their son and daughter-in-law of physical assault and further prevented the well-wishers and other sons of respondents 2 ad 3 from entering the residential house.

On finding the real possibility of the safety and security of the aged petitioners being jeopardized, Tribunal directed eviction by the order impugned.

Analysis, Law and Decision


High Court expressed that the safety and security of the respondents 2 and 3 shall be in jeopardy unless the petitioners are evicted.

The Bench stated that the emotional and physical well-being of the aged respondents 2 and 3 could not be ensured unless the petitioners vacate the self-acquired residential house of respondent 2.

Supreme Court considered the scheme of the Act in Dr Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India, 2019 ALL SCR 155, wherein several directions were issued to make the provisions of the Act more effective and to ensure that the constitutional goal which the beneficial legislation seeks to achieve is enthused with more vigor.

High Court held that the eviction order was absolutely necessary in order to ensure the physical and emotional health and safety of the parents. [Namdeo v. Geeta, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 914, decided on 4-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Mr. Lubesh Meshram, Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Singha, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. N. R. Rode, AGP for Respondent 1/State.

Mr. P. S. Wathore, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., expressed that the children also have the right to love and affection from both parents as well as grandparents as it is essential for the personal development and overall well-being of the children.

Counsel for the petitioner-husband stated that the petitioner-father had no access to the children since June 2020. Further, he stated that the petitioner’s father was having health issues and he would like to see his grandchildren.

Needless to state that the Petitioner-father, the non-custodial parent cannot be deprived of his right to spend quality time and enjoy the company of the children. 

High Court held that without going into the merits of the matter, permitted the petitioner-father to have access to the children from 14th April, 2022 to 16th April, 2022.

Considering the nature of the present dispute, the matter was referred for mediation.

Matter to be listed on 21-4-2022 to decide the issue of interim access arrangement. [Gaurav Suresh Tingre v. Priyanka Gaurav Tingre, WP No. 1372 of 2022, decided on 13-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Ajinkya Udane for the petitioner.

Gauri Godse, i/b Rohit Joshi for the respondent.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order.

Factual Background

The facts of the case are such that the respondent is mother of petitioner 1 and mother-in-law of petitioner 2, whose husband passed away bequeathing all movable and immovable properties in favour of the respondent by way of will prior to his death. The respondent has 3 sons and 1 daughter. She bought a house which is disputed in the instant case wherein she was living with the son second in number as the elder son had died and younger son is not well to do. Petitioner 1 filed suit before the Civil Court for declaration of the disputed property (85% under his name) as he invested around 8 lakhs out of his own funds. The Civil Court rejected the plaint upon Order 7 Rule 11 application by order dated 06-08-2021 against which an appeal was preferred which is sub judice before this Court. The present writ petition was filed under Article 226 & 227 Constitution of India against the order dated 08-03-2019 passed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal (S.D.O.) Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby, petitioners were directed to vacate the premises and the rights of respondent mother were restored.

Arguments

Counsel for respondent mother submitted that it is only because of pension of her husband that she is able to financially support herself otherwise, she is ousted out of her house by the petitioners and is being harassed by them on day to day basis and she is under pathetic condition suffering mental and social torture as she has to live in her married daughter’s house, which is against the customs of Hindu joint family.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations of ill-treatment qua abusive language, neglect, mental and physical torture against him and his wife are only cooked story. The fact of not providing food, not taking appropriate care of relatives or visitors of the respondent and not providing medical facilities to the respondent are also part of the sham story. The petitioners further submit that it is on her own sweet will that the respondent went to Bhiwani, her native town, to her sister-in-law in the year 2010 and thereafter since March, 2018 until today she is residing at her daughter’s house and the petitioners had no role to play in forcing her out of the disputed property for the said period.

Observation

The Court observed that Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted by the Legislature in the background that the traditional norms and values of the Indian Society are lost due to withering of the joint family system as a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family, particularly the widowed women, who are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect, lack of financial support and are rather treated as a waste.

The Court relied on judgment S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online SC 1023 and observed that when there are family laws and personal laws and there is domestic conflict between in-laws and daughter-in-law, both are protected by respective legislation. However, in the event of conflict between them, the dominant purpose of both the statutes has to be seen in a harmonious way as it is important to strike a balance between family law and personal law and read them in a way so as to glue the family and society.

The Court after perusing the facts and grounds of impugned order has come to a conclusion that ill-treatment is meted out to the respondent-mother, she is expelled from her own house, allegations of mental, physical and social abuse have been leveled against the petitioners and during the proceedings before this court respondent-mother categorically submitted that living with the petitioners would pose a threat to her life and mental wellbeing, the prayer of the petition to set aside the eviction order of tribunal passed on 08-03-2019 does not have a leg to stand on.

Decision

The Court held “the petitioners along with their family are directed to honor the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 and vacate the premises within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment on their own cost and restore the house in vacant manner and in appropriate condition to the respondent-mother with due respect.” [Suresh Sharma v. Dhanwanti Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 672, decided on 07-04-2022]


Appearances-

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepak Sharma

For Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Mehta and Mr. Mudit Singhvi


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., held that Asif i.e. son has no rights in his father’s flats.

As per the petition, Fazal Khan was living in a vegetative state for the last decade and he not only had dementia but has had multiple strokes also. The crux of the petition was the appointment of Fazal’s wife, Sonia as the 1st petitioner, as the guardian of Fazal’s personal and property.

It was noted from the medical report of Fazal that he was totally dependent on his caregivers.

In the present case, the Court was concerned with a Bank Account wherein Fazal was the first holder and Sonia, i.e. his wife the joint holder. The second asset was a property which was a residential flat.

An intervention application as pointed by the Court, which was filed by Asif Fazal Khan, the “de facto” guardian of Fazal for many years and there was absolutely nothing in the said application to show that.

Further, Asif submitted that although his parents were alive, there are two flats and both are what he describes as “a shared household” therefore he, the son, had some sort of enforceable legal right or entitlement to either or both of these flats.

High Court expressed that,

“In any conceptualization of succession law for any community or faith, Asif can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father’s name and other in his mother’s name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable.”

Therefore, the intervention application filed by the son was rejected.

High Court permitted the wife of Fazal Khan to operate the Bank account and added that she may draw amounts in the said account to meet all and any of Fazal’s expenses, though she can’t use that money for her personal expenses nor she can transfer the said amount to her personal account and once a year, the wife is required to file a statement of account.

The wife proposed to sell the flats so that the proceeds could be used to look after Fazal, hence the Court permitted the same and directed that without prior leave to this Court she can execute an MoU or an agreement for sale.

In view of the above -said the petition is kept pending. [Sonia Fazal Khan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 627, decided on 16-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

Mr Nikhil Wadikar, i/b Ganesh Dhonde, for the Petitioner.
Mr Maneesh Trivedi, i/b LR & Associates, for Intervenor/Applicant

in IA/2411/2021.
Mr Adavit Sethna, i/b Anusha P Amin & Tanay M Mandot, for

Respondent 1-UOI.
Mrs Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for State.

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Expressing that when the children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them at the mercy of their destiny and use their muscle power to torture and harass them, the parents’ world get totally shattered which marks as the beginning for the unfortunate tale of their moving from one Forum to another for redressal, Harnaresh Singh Gill, J., while quoting from the holy script of  Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Dass has written ‘KAAHAY POOT JHAGRAT HA-O SANG BAAP/ JIN KAY JANAY BADEERAY TUM HA-O TIN SIO JHAGRAT PAPP//” (O son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you) stated that “we have to treat our parents as God.


Life is full with extraordinary challenges and unrivalled opportunities, but such chances must not be used against those who parented you.

Classic Example

Instant matter was a classic example, wherein the petitioners sought equities entirely forgetting that it is because of their conduct that their old and aged parents had to seek their eviction so as to buy back their peace and freedom.

Grievance

Issuance of writ of mandamus was sought for directing respondents 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents 4 and 5 and mandate them not to interfere in the property of the petitioners.

Application filed by respondent 4 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 wherein the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected from the house is also sought to be dismissed.

Factual Background

Respondent 4 had filed an application under the provisions of the 2007 Act against the petitioners i.e. his son and daughter-in-law. Petitioners were not treating respondent 4 and 5 properly and depriving them even of the basic necessities and just wanted to grab respondents’ property and owing to their behaviour, respondents 4 and 5 had disowned petitioner 1 from their movable and immovable property.

Respondents had even requested the petitioners to vacate the house in question, but they did not. Sub Divisional Magistrate in his report recommended the ejectment of the petitioners and sent the same to the District Magistrate who ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the house.

Petitioners’ Contention

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the house in question was a joint Hindu Family Property and petitioner 1 had also contributed to the construction of ground floor of the house, he also started a business in which respondent 4 was shown the proprietor.

Another submission was that the respondents had ill-treated petitioner 2 and accordingly FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 were registered against the respondents.

Adding to its submissions, the petitioners counsel also contended that the District Magistrate had no power under Section 23 of the 2007 Act to direct a son to vacate the house of his parents because none of the circumstances contemplated in the statutory provisions, is attracted in a father-son-relationship.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Respondent 4’s case was that the house in question was his self-acquired property, and rather it was not a Joint Hindu Family Property.

SDM in its report had stated that as per the sale deed, respondent 4 was the owner of the house in question.

High Court stated that even if for the sake of arguments, Court assumes that respondent 4 had gifted the house to the petitioners, even then the transfer of property was to be held void in certain circumstances.

Section 23 of the 2007 Act dealt with the validity of the transfer of property in certain circumstances.

“…if a senior citizen who, after the commencement of the 2007 Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, with the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, who thereafter refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, then the transfer of the property made by the senior citizen 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.”

Rule 24 of the Rules provides in the action plan as to how the property of senior citizen, which includes a residential building, can be vacated from his son, daughter or legal heir(s) while in an unauthorized occupation and how the said order is to be enforced.

Court added that though the present matter is not the one wherein any transfer or gift has been executed by respondent 4 and 5. Hence, the petitioners cannot maintain the claim on the alleged ground that petitioner 1 had contributed towards the renovation of the house.

Adding more to the analysis, Bench expressed that even in the cases, where a gift deed was executed by the parents in favour of the children, it was held that irrespective of any condition regarding providing to the transferor the basic amenities, the transferee would be bound to maintain the transferor.

High Court referred to this Court’s decision in Raksha Devi v. Deputy Commr., decided on 3-5-2018.

In view of the above, Court dismissed the petition on not finding any merit. [Anil Kumar Dhiman v. State of Haryana, CRWP 1357 of 2019, decided on 21-9-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Mr Akhil Bhasin, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr Anuj Balian, Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5.


Additional Reading:


“Daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married”: Bom HC orders son to vacate flat of 90 yrs old parents

Under Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is it necessary to find out whether property belongs to parent exclusively or is a shared household in which daughter-in-law has rights? Bom HC deciphers

Children living in parents’ house are at best licensees: Cal HC says senior citizens’ exclusive residentiary rights to be viewed from prism of Art. 21

P&H HC | Maintaining elderly parents is not only a value based principle but a bounden duty under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Act

Madras HC | Sons turning turtle after giving undertaking to vacate their father’s premises is Contempt of Court: Read synopsis of Court’s opinion

Del HC | Which is the proper forum for filing appeals from the eviction order passed by DM under Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act? Court answers

All HC | Is the District Magistrate under obligation to provide protection to senior citizens being harassed by their children? HC explains

Bom HC | “If children cannot take care of their parents and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell”; Court sternly warns daughter to not harass mother physically & mentally

Chh HC | Step-son held duty bound to maintain his step-mother under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act

Maintenance – Children and Parents

Parents can evict children under the provisions of MWPSC Act, 2007 upon being harassed: Bombay HC

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Stating that the welfare of the minor cannot be determined on the sole parameter of the work commitment of one parent and availability of ample time with another, Bench of N.J. Jamadar and S.S. Shinde, JJ., expressed that,

Courts often ensure that even if custody is given to one parent, the non-custodial parent has adequate visitation rights.

Instant petition was filed for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the son of the petitioner, who had been allegedly illegally kept away from the petitioner by respondent 2 – wife of petitioner and immediate transfer of custody of son to petitioner.

Background

As per petitioner, respondent 2 was extremely busy with her professional commitments and has not been able to devote any time for parenting and development of minor son. In contrast, petitioner had decided not to accept any professional commitment and devote his entire time, effort and attention to bring up the son.

Due to marital discord, respondent 2 allegedly prevented the petitioner from meeting the son, jeopardizing the willingness and happiness of son and even the petitioner made efforts to meet the son, respondent lodged false and motivated reports against him.

Even when the son got infected with COVID-19, respondent 2 sent him to petitioner’s house who nursed him and took care of him. The son even refused to leave the house and accompany respondent 2.

Respondent 2 along with the son absconded and on several efforts of the petitioner, he couldn’t locate respondent 2.

In view of the above background, petitioner approached the Court.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court while analyzing the matter stated that it is not an immutable rule of law that writ of habeas corpus, at the instance of one parent, is not maintainable if the child is in the custody of another parent, unless the custody is strictly illegal or unlawful.

Further, the Court also added that the writ of habeas corpus can also be pressed into service for granting the custody of a child to a spouse if the welfare of the child so dictates.

Who should be given custody?

To determine the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the primary consideration is the welfare of the minor and not the legal rights of the parents, statutory or customary.

Parents at loggerheads

Parameters for determination of the proper custody for a minor, when the parents are at loggerheads are well recognized.

Legal rights of the parents yield to the paramountcy of the welfare of the child.

Bench referred to the decision of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, wherein the Supreme Court articulated factors, which weigh-in, in determining the question of custody of a minor child.

Supreme Court’s decision of Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413, was also referred to, wherein the consideration for determination of the proper custody of a minor child were succinctly postulated.

In view of the above decision, Bench noted that welfare of the minor is a broad and elastic term.

 Every factor which bears upon the development of the child, must enter into the decision of the Court. Court is called upon to deal with a human problem with a humane touch.

Tender Years Rule

Bench stated that the said rule has been recognized under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which provides that in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, father, and after him, the mother shall be the natural guardian; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother.

Coming to the present facts and circumstances, Court expressed that it is imperative to note that having regard to the age of the son, tender year rules, which has statutory recognition, get attracted and thus cannot be brushed aside lightly in evaluating the “welfare principle”.

In Court’s opinion, the issue of welfare of the minor cannot be determined on the sole parameter of the work commitment of one parent and availability of ample time with another.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court found no exceptional circumstances which warranted a departure from “tender years rule”, nor there was such material which prima face indicated that the custody with mother was detrimental to the welfare and development of the son.

Lastly, while concluding, the Court stated that the minor son needs love, affection, care and protection of both, petitioner and respondent 2.

Love and affection of both parents is considered to be the basic human right of a child. Thus, the element of the access of the child to a non-custodial parent assumes critical salience.

Courts often ensure that even if custody is given to one parent, non-custodial parent has adequate visitation rights.

High Court stated that for the development of the sone, it would be necessary to allow the physical access of father to son at least twice a week.

Directing for daily access through video conference for half an hour and physical access twice a week of minor son to petitioner, the present petition was disposed of. [Abhinav Kohli v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal WP No. 225 of 2021, decided on 30-9-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Swapna P. Kode i/b Tripti R. Shetty for petitioner/applicant.

J.P. Yagnik, APP for respondent 1 – State.

Hrishikesh Mundargi i/b Subir Sarkar for respondent 2.


Read more:

Minor:

1. Means a person who has not completed his or her age of eighteen years, [Section 3(c), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (India)].

2. Means a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years, [Section 2(1)(t), Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (India)].

Custody:

Implies guardianship. It must be a lawful custody under provisions of a statute or under order of court, Omkar Prasad Verma v. State of M.P.(2007) 4 SCC 323: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 293.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., while addressing a motor accidents claim application decided on the issue whether it would be fair to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age?

In the instant application, the appellants challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal and sought enhancement of the award amount.

The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his parents who claimed compensation. Deceased was self-employed as a Contractor earning Rs 55,000 to Rs 60,000 per month.

Claims Tribunal held that since the deceased’s father was working with the Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector, hence was not dependent upon the deceased. Also, the deceased’s mother could not be said to be dependent upon the deceased as her husband was employed with the Delhi Police.

Therefore the Claim Tribunal had concluded that the deceased’s parents were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency but only to compensation for loss of the estate in terms of the principles laid down in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar, 2011 ACJ 1734.

Analysis, Decision and Law

  • Whether the mother of the deceased is entitled to compensation for the death of her son?

Court opined that the parents of the deceased were considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain themselves and the law imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their parents.

Further, the Bench added that

Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of the accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.

With regard to loss of dependency, the Court held that it would be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.

Following are legislations that recognize the legal rights of parents to be maintained by their children:

♦ Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

♦ Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Bench referred to the following decisions:

Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, (1987) 2 SCC 278.

In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 Supreme Court had reaffirmed the with respect to the rights of parents to compensation in case of accidental death of a child.

Mahendrakumar Ramrao Gaikwad v. Gulabbai Ramrao Gaikwad, 2001 CriLJ 2111

In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held that the mother of the deceased bachelor is entitled to compensation by taking 50% of his income as loss of dependency on the premise that the deceased would not contribute more than 50% to his mother after marriage. The Supreme Court further observed that the mother would be considered as a dependent even if the father was employed and earning.

In light of the above decisions, the High Court held that the parents of the deceased child are considered as dependents for computation of compensation. Further, the Bench also highlighted that the principles relating to the loss to the estate shall apply only to claimants other than parents, children and spouse.

Hence, the deceased’s mother in the instant case is entitled to compensation for loss of dependency.

Compensation

Taking the income of the deceased as Rs 4,131 per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs 6,24,607.20.

Court directed the appellant 1 to remain present in Court before the next date of hearing along with the passbook of her savings bank account near the place of her residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card.

Appellant 1 shall produce the original passbook of her individual savings bank account with the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing. However, the bank concerned shall permit appellant 1 to withdraw money from her savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form.

While concluding in light of the above-stated, Court asked for the copy of this Judgment to be sent to Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitize the Claims Tribunals about the principles laid down by this Court in the present Judgment. [Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 114, decided on 08-01-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

For the Appellants: Santosh Kumar Chauriha, Advocate

For the Respondents: Atul Nigam, Advocate along with Anubhav Tyagi and Randhir Kumar, Advocates for R-3

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Vivek Kumar Birla, J., while addressing a matter with regard to “shared household”, held that,

“daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking decree of eviction against son with whom she had moved on the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with the appellant.”

Appellant was married to the plaintiff’s son — Vijay Gandhi. In the year 2013, Vijay Gandhi deserted the appellant and filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Further, it has been noted that an FIR was lodged against the appellant by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff is the owner of the property wherein he permitted his son and the defendant to live on the first floor of his house. Defendant started harassing the plaintiff who is old and handicapped along with his wife.

Suit for Eviction

In view of the above incident, the plaintiff asked his son to vacate the house with the defendant, who later came back and refused to vacate the house. Hence suit for eviction was filed against the defendant.

Substantial question in the present appeal

(I) Whether as per definition of shared household provided under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 appellant daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking a decree of eviction against son with whom she had admittedly moved on the first floor of the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with appellant?

Supreme Court in its decision, S.R. Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, while considering the aspect of “shared household” held that where the plaintiff is the exclusive owner, it cannot be called a “shared household”. The wife’s claim for alternative accommodation against the plaintiff was rejected and was held that it can be claimed only against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives.

S.R. Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169: a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

Hence, in the Court’s opinion, no substantial question of law arose or can be raised in the present second appeal.

Order 1 Rule 3 and Rule 9 CPC

Further, the Court added that, it is not in dispute that the husband was not residing in the suit property and left the house. It is also not being questioned that if parents permit his son to live in their house he would be a licensee. If his wife is also living with him, she would also be a licensee.

Where the son has left and is not residing in the suit property, no relief is being or is claimed against him. Since he is not living in the suit property, question of filing a separate suit or which may attract any common question of law or fact would also not arise.

Lastly, answering the substantial question of law in the negative, bench once again cited the Supreme Court decision in S.R. Batra with regard to the shared household and the argument for counsel for the respondent (wife) that definition of the shared household includes a house where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship was specifically considered and rejected.

Court added that a reading of the said judgment, subject to correction, prima facie, reflects that husband was not a party to the suit and it was held that the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives.

Therefore, in view of the definition of the shared house, as provided under Section 2 (s) of the Act, 2005 daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking a decree of eviction against the son with whom she had admittedly moved in the suit property after the marriage of the son of the plaintiff.

In view of the above observations, petition was dismissed. [Sujata Gandhi v. S.B. Gandhi, 2020 SCC OnLine All 763, decided on 12-06-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Karnataka High Court directs the State officials to conduct Karnataka Common Entrance Test (CET) exam as per the schedule. No student should be prevented for appearing the exam.

Bench denied to grant interim relief in terms of postponing or cancelling the exam, scheduled to be held on July 30, 31 and August 1, 2020.

Court in it’s yesterday’s Order had directed the Karnataka State government to reconsider the advisability of conducting the Karnataka Common Entrance Test (KCET) 2020 on July 30th, 31st and 1st August in light of the rising number of Covid-19 cases.

High Court has stated  that no Covid positive student should be denied opportunity of writing the examination just because documents are not provided. Authorities shall make sure that conditions in the SOP issued by the Union Ministry of Health and the SOP of state from time to time are scrupulously followed by all.

Authorities to provide transportation to needy students and all logistical support, especially to students and parents from containment zones.

Yesterday’s Decision

The Court passed the order after considering the pleas in three different petitions, all of which sought to have directions issued by the Court ordering the state government to postpone the CET. It was contended that considering the onslaught of the ongoing pandemic, conducting a physical examination was arbitrary and would jeopardize the health of the students, and conducting the same under these circumstances would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14, since students in containment zones would not have equal opportunities of attending the exam resulting in a violation of their right to equality, and Article 21.

The Bench observed that more than 5000 new cases had been reported daily in the state in the past fortnight, with 1500 cases emerging daily in Bangalore alone, which has over 5000 containment zones. Since the government SOP prohibits the inhabitants of containment areas from travelling outside and considering that public transport would not be readily available either, the Bench duly noted that there would be a probability of students missing out on the exams.

*The above report has been prepared based on news reports.


Read the detailed Case brief, here:

KCET 2020 | Kar HC | No candidate shall be prevented from attending examination scheduled to be held from 30th July, 2020 [Detailed Brief]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Our country has always been proud of progeny like Shravan Kumar, who to fulfill the wish of his poor, blind and ageing parents, took them on a pilgrimage by carrying them on his shoulder in two baskets put on either side of the bamboo stick, and whilst trying to collect water on his way from a stream, to quench the thirst of his parents, became a target of King Dashrath’s arrow.”

–Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and N.R. Borkar, JJ., while addressing a matter wherein a 70 year old mother was physically and mentally harassed by one of her daughters,  noted that,

“…it is unfortunate that in the last several years courts are repeatedly witnessing, old parents knocking at its doors, in the twilight years of their lives seeking redressal of their grievances against their children.”

A 70-Year old mother had approached the High Court alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her daughter (respondent 1).

Court while addressing the said matter stated that, the welfare of the parents / senior citizens is of paramount importance, ascertain the seriousness and correctness of the allegations made, pass appropriate order/s ensuring that no injustice or inconvenience is caused to either party.

Bench in it’s earlier order, when the mother approached the court for relief, had laid down the following order:

Bench assured the petitioner that if she lives in her own flat and face any harassment from respondent 1 or her son, she will be provided all assistance, both by the Court and police authorities.

Installation of CCTV cameras inside the flat has been directed.

Respondent 1 and her son, both have been sternly warned . Senior Inspector of local police station under who jurisdiction the flat come has been directed to give all assistance to the petitioner.

Respondent 1 and her son will not obstruct entry of any of the relatives whom petitioner wants to meet. Also respondent 1 and her son are not allowed to invite or bring any of their guests to the flat without prior permission of petitioner through her advocate.

What is the present situation in the above matter?

Respondent 1 daughter has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner mother was reacting/over-reacting at the instance of her other sibling namely her sister – Vaishali, who has admittedly temporarily come down with her family from Singapore.

Petitioner refusing the above made an offer to allow respondent 1 and her son to reside in one of her flats at Nalasopara on and from 15th July, 2020 and only on her agreement petitioner would be able to come back to her flat for the remainder of her life and stay in peace.

Court was happy to note that respondent 1 daughter and her son have undertaken to vacate the said flat with a period of 8 weeks.

Keeping the interest of the family and their rights, in mind, Court passed the following order:

  • Undertaking given by the respondent 1 and her son that they will vacate the flat with 8 weeks — is accepted.
  • If the Respondent 1 along with her son, are unable to find premises on leave and license basis within a period of 08 weeks from today, the Petitioner shall allow them to reside in her fat at Nalasopara, until they find a premises of their choice on leave and license basis.
  • Respondent 1 shall pay maintenance charges, electricity, telephone, etc. for the period that she and her son occupy the flat at Nalasopara.
  • Petitioner shall move to her flat once respondent 1 and her son vacate the flat.
  • Since the share certificate issued by the Society admittedly stands in the sole name of the husband of the Petitioner, who passed away intestate on 26th January, 2011, the Petitioner shall not sell, alienate, encumber and part with possession or create third party rights in respect of the said fat during her lifetime, without seeking permission of this Court and without giving notice to all the legal heirs of her husband. However, the Petitioner will be entitled to execute her Will and bequeath her share in the said fat to person/s of her choice.
  • If any of the daughters of the Petitioner and / or any other relatives or any person starts residing in the said fat along with the Petitioner as a Caretaker, such person shall vacate the said fat immediately upon the demise of the Petitioner and shall not make any claim on the said fat, on the ground that he / she / they were residing therein along with the Petitioner.
  • Since Curt has not finally determined any allegations made by either parties, it is made clear that non on the allegations stand established. Petitioner or their family members/ or any other persons hall not publicise any allegations against each other in any manner whatsoever .

Matter was disposed off in the above terms. [Rajani B. Somkuwar v. Sarita Somkuwar, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 722  , decided on 19-06-2020]


Also Read:

Bom HC | “If children cannot take care of their parents and allow them to live in peace, they atleast ought not to make their life a living hell”; Court sternly warns daughter to not harass mother physically & mentally

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by PTI, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ., allowed the CBI’s appeal challenging the acquittal of dentist couple in the 2008 Aarushi Talwar’s murder case and domestic help Hemraj.

ASG Maninder Singh, on behalf of CBI, had referred the plea filed by domestic help Hemraj’s wife for which the Supreme Court bench stated that CBI’s appeal would be heard along with it.

The Allahabad High Court had acquitted Talwars from all the charges on the basis that conviction cannot be based on suspicion and further adding that CBI had failed to prove “guilt beyond reasonable doubt”. [CBI v. Nupur Talwar, Order dated 10-08-2018]