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.


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.


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.


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]


For Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepak Sharma

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

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Noting in case after case, complaints from senior citizens that their own sons and daughters are harassing them, Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J Jamdar, JJ., expressed that,

“…the harassment is an attempt to somehow grab the senior citizen’s property in his or her lifetime without thought spared to the mental or physical health well-being or happiness of these seniors.”

Instant petition challenged an order passed by the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector Mumbai City on a complaint made to that tribunal by 2nd respondent (Mr Shetty). 2nd respondent was the father of four daughters.

Mr Shetty stated that he does not want his daughter petitioner Shweta to remain, occupy or reside in Flat No. 2A, Giriraj CHSL, 11 Altamont Road, Mumbai.


There was no doubt that Mr Shetty was the sole and absolute owner of the above-stated flat and Shweta has no right of any kind in the said flat. She has not even canvassed any independent right to the flat at all.


Mr Shetty, aged 94 years old was a widower with several age-related health ailments and he was being continuously harassed and mistreated by Shweta.

He submitted that, Shweta contributed nothing to the house and was rude, aggressive and with time her conduct deteriorated. She began to badger Mr Shetty “for her share of the property” and said that she would leave the flat only after she was given “her share”. Shweta even caused physical distress to the domestic help and damaged the household as well.

In view of the above, Mr Shetty sought Shweta’s eviction from a Tribunal.

Analysis, Law and Decision

To constitute eviction, or to invoke any prohibition against eviction, it must be shown that some legally enforceable civil right of the appellant in the property itself has been determined and that the appellant has been denied that right. Removal of a person with no right in the premises is not eviction so as to attract any such prohibition.

 Agreeing with the various decisions of the Courts, Bench expressed that,

“…it is our experience that in this city, and particularly or most especially amongst the wealthy of this city, senior citizens and elderly parents are being subjected to all kinds of harassment and deprivation in their twilight years.”

 In the instant matter, the daughter has been demanding her share from her father’s property but what is her ‘share’ while he is alive? Well, none. As long as Mr Shetty is alive, Shweta has no ‘share’ in his property.

Bench added to the above that,

“…this is not an isolated experience at all. It is, in fact, a widely noticed trend and it is to address this evil – we will not even call it mischief – that the 2007 Act was brought into force.”

When the Court spoke to Mr Shetty he was completely unambiguous and indeed emphatic in his statement to the Court that he did not want Shweta in his house for one minute longer. He repeatedly asked that she be made to leave his flat and that he be left in peace.

With respect to the argument of Mr Thorat that the Act does not contemplate the removal of any person from immovable property, Court found the said proposition to be incorrect.

Court agreed with the views of this Court in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2246 along with the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11640.

Bench lastly, added that if the Delhi rules provide for eviction of a person with no right in the property to protect the interests and welfare of a senior citizen, this necessarily means that the right to order removal of a claimant exists in the statute itself.

In view of the above petition was rejected. [Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4575, decided on 25-11-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Mr Pradeep Thorat, i/b Manoj Agiwal.

For the Respondent 2: Dr Sujay Kantawala, with Aditya Iyer.

For Respondents 3,4 and 5: Ms Aishwarya Kantawala.

For the State: Mr Kedar Dighe, AGP.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Rajasekhar Mantha, J., held that,

To compel a senior citizen to approach either a civil court (the jurisdiction of which is any way barred under Section 27 of the 2007 Act) or take recourse to a special Statute like the 2007 Act would in most cases be extremely erroneous and painful for a person in the sunset days of life.

It is well settled that children and their spouses living in the senior citizen’s house are at best “licensees”. It is also stated that the said license comes to an end once the senior citizens are not comfortable with their children and their families.

The above-said principle was followed by the Delhi High Court in Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner, WP (C) 2761 of 2020 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manmohan Singh v. UT Chandigarh, Case No. 1365 of 2015; Samsher Singh v. District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh (Case No. 2017 CWP 6365) and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, Case No. 2016 (1) RCR (Civil) 324.

Issues for consideration:

  • Availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
  • Right of a daughter-in-law of residence to be provided by either the husband or the father-in-law, if directed by a competent court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023, expressed that since both, the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are special legislations, the two must be construed harmoniously and applied suitably by a writ court hearing a plea of the senior citizens that they do not want their children to live with them. In the said decision, Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the principle under the headline “E. Harmonising competing reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007”.

In the present matter, since no right of residence was sought by the daughter-in-law, the Court opined that there was no impediment in allowing exclusive residentiary rights to the senior citizens to direct eviction of son and daughter-in-law.

Therefore, while concluding, the High Court stated that the right of a senior citizen to exclusively reside in his own house, must be viewed from the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the Court added that the principle of alternative remedy cannot be strictly applied to Senior Citizens and a Writ Court must come to the aid of a Senior Citizen in a given case.

A nation that cannot take care of its aged, old and infirm citizens cannot be regarded as having achieved complete civilization.

In view of the above discussion, petition was disposed of.[Ramapada Basak v. State of West Bengal, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2161, decided on 23-07-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr. Sobhan Majumder
… … for the petitioners

Mr. Raja Saha Mr. Simanta Kabir

… for the State

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ., and G. S. Kulkarni, J., asked the Municipal Corporations if they are prepared to introduce door to door vaccination for such citizens notwithstanding disinclination of Central government to formulate policy in that regard.

The ASG, Mr. Singh had submitted before the Court the minutes of meetings of Expert Committee constituted by Central government to discuss possibility of door to door vaccination for elderly and disabled citizens. The ASG had further submitted that the Central government is considering of adopting a Standard Operating Procedure for vaccination of elderly. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that no valid reason had been assigned by the Expert Committee for not introducing door to door vaccination policy for the elderly and disabled citizens who cannot be taken to the vaccination centres.

Observing the minutes of the meetings, the Bench asked the Municipal Commissioner whether they are prepared, in spite of disinclination of to formulate door to door vaccination policy for elderly and disabled citizens to introduce door to door vaccination for such citizens and undertake measures for their vaccination upon making them aware of the aftereffects/consequences, under proper medical care and upon obtaining consent of either such citizens or their near relatives, for being vaccinated in pursuance of Court’s order.

[Dhruti Kapadia v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 733, decided on 19-05-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together

Appearance before the Court:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Dhruti Kapadia (In person)

Counsels for UOI: ASG Anil C. Singh with Advait Sethna i/by Anusha P. Amin

Counsels for the State: G.P. Purnima Kantharia with Addl. G.P. Geeta Shastri

Counsel for MCGM: K. H. Mastakar

Counsel for Pune Municipal Corporation: Ahijit Kulkarni

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a bid to harmonise the competing reliefs of a daughter-in-law and her in-laws under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, respectively, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent, however, the over-riding effect for remedies sought under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the DV Act 2005.


The spouse of the appellant purchased a property in his own name a few months before the marriage but subsequently sold it, after a few years, under a registered sale deed at the same price to his father (the father-in-law of the appellant), who in turn gifted it to his spouse i.e. the mother-in-law of the appellant after divorce proceedings were instituted by the Fourth respondent. Parallel to this, the appellant had instituted proceedings of dowry harassment against her mother-in-law and her estranged spouse; and her spouse had instituted divorce proceedings. The appellant had also filed proceedings for maintenance against the Fourth respondent and the divorce proceedings are pending. It is subsequent to these events, that the parents-in-law instituted an application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 seeking their daughter-in-laws’s eviction from the residential house.

The appellant had asserted that she had been living in the house, as her matrimonial residence, until the application was filed. According to her, her spouse has deserted her and their minor daughter and left them in the lurch. The electricity to the premises was disconnected for non-payment of dues. She claimed that the proceedings have been utilised to secure the eviction of the appellant so as to deny her claim of a right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

Harmonising competing reliefs under the DV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007

Section 36 of the DV Act 2005 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This is intended to ensure that the remedies provided under the enactment are in addition to other remedies and do not displace them. The Senior Citizens Act 2007 is undoubtedly a later Act and Section 3 stipulates that its provisions will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment. However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household, as under the DV Act 2005.

“Principles of statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two special acts containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall typically prevail.”

The Senior Citizen’s Act 2007 contains a non obstante clause. However, in the event of a conflict between special acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise. Hence, Section 36 of the DV Act 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that operates in a separate field.

In this case, both pieces of legislation are intended to deal with salutary aspects of public welfare and interest. The DV Act 2005 was intended to deal with the problems of domestic violence which, as the Statements of Objects and Reasons sets out, “is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain”. The Statements of Objects and Reasons indicates that while Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code created a penal offence out of a woman’s subjection to cruelty by her husband or relative, the civil law did not address its phenomenon in its entirety. Hence, consistent with the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Parliament enacted a legislation which would “provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society”.

A significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household.

“Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the DV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation.”

The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the DV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed.

“Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.”

Role of Tribunals constituted under Senior Citizens Act 2007

Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the Civil Courts, under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

“However, the over-riding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the DV Act 2005. The DV Act 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under S.2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the DV Act 2005.”

Section 26 of the DV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present case where the suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the DV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

Duty of “aggrieved woman” under DV Act

Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a “shared household‟ under Section 17 of the DV Act 2005. In the event that the “aggrieved woman” obtains a relief from a Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, she shall be duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the DV Act 2005, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the DV Act 2005. This course of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the DV Act 2005- of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realized.

Decision on facts

A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws or that her estranged spouse is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the DV Act 2005.”

On construing the provisions of sub-Section (2) of section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act 2007, it is evident that it applies to a situation where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred. On the other hand, the appellant’s simple plea is that the suit premises constitute her “shared household‟ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act 2005.

Considering the series of transactions which took place in respect of the property, the Court noticed that the fact that specific proceedings under the DV Act 2005 had not been instituted when the application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed, should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an order of eviction deprives her from pursuing her claim of entitlement under the law.

“The inability of a woman to access judicial remedies may, as this case exemplifies, be a consequence of destitution, ignorance or lack of resources. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizen Act 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household.”


The Court, hence, concluded that the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the DV Act 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The in-laws i.e. the Second and Third Respondents will be at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum.

The Court left it open to the appellant to pursue her remedies under the DV Act 2005. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to seek the help of the District Legal Services Authorities and if the appellant does so, all necessary aid and assistance shall be furnished to her in pursuing her legal remedies and rights. Further, in order to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies under the DV Act 2005, there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises or from creating any right, title and interest in favor of any third party in any manner whatsoever for a period of one year, to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies under the DV Act 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections.

[S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020, decided on 16.12.2020]

*Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud has penned this judgment. Read more about him here.

For Appellant: Advocate Yatish Mohan

For Respondents: Advocate Rajesh Mahale

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Andhra Pradesh High Court: Battu Devanand, J., observed that:

It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time.

Petitioners sought decree in favour of them and against defendants 4 and 9 in light of the following reliefs:

  • sale deed, dated 18-03-2002 executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendant 9 in relation to the schedule property does not bind the plaintiffs and defendants1 to 7 after the lifetime of defendant 4 as she is entitled to collect rents from it and live and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 9 for disturbing the status quo by inducting defendant 9 into the scheduled house as the purchase of the same under above sale deed.
  • for the partition of the plaint schedule house by passing a preliminary decree into six shares and allot two such shares to the plaintiffs
  • for past profits from the 9th defendant since 04-06-2003 in a sum of Rs 2000 per month x 14 = Rs 28,000 and from the 8th defendant at Rs 900 per month x 14 = Rs 12,600;
  • for a direction for ascertainment of mesne profit on those portions from the date of suit till the date of realization from the defendants 8 to 9 respectively.

Analysis and Decision

Bench stated that the request of the petitioners, who are the senior citizens, has to be considered positively and their hope towards this institution has to be proved to meet the ends of justice.

The year 1999 was observed as “International Year of Older Persons”. In view of the “National Policy for Older Persons” adopted by the Government of India, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad issued a Circular directing all the Judicial Officers in the State to identify and dispose of matters in which persons above “65 years” of age are involved, on a priority basis.

Circulars were issued in which specific instructions were issued to give priority to the cases relating to senior citizens for expeditious disposal.

Dealy of 9 Years

Bench observed that petitioners filed the suit in the year, 2002 and it was decreed in the year 2010 and the petitioners filed an interlocutory application on 07-02-2011 as per the docket proceedings of I.A.No. 565 of 2011. It was adjourned time to time and pending till date. As such, it is clear that the said interlocutory application is pending before the Court below for more than 9 years which is very unreasonable and contrary to the procedure contemplated under law.

It is not sufficient to respect and honour the senior citizens in the late evening of their life by giving some concessions in bus, rail and Airfares and giving priority in allotting lower births in the trains and comfortable seats in buses.

The real respect and honour to the senior citizens is to render speedy justice to them for which they would have a legitimate expectation.

Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajinder Singh v. Prem Mal, (2007) 11 SCC 37, wherein it was held:

“People in India are simply disgusted with this state of affairs, and are past loosing faith in the judiciary because of the inordinate delay in disposal of cases. We request the authorities concerned to do the needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy disposal of cases if the people’s faith in the judiciary is to remain.”

In view of the above, Court directed the Additional District Judge to dispose of the matter s expeditiously as possible. [Pelluri. Venkata Hanumantha Krishna Murthy Sharma v. Pelluri. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 1750, decided on 07-12-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania, JJ., directed the District Magistrate to provide protection to senior citizens being troubled by their children.

Petitioners claimed themselves to be senior citizens and were entitled to receive protection and security from the State.

It was alleged that their two daughters along with their sons-in-law were interested in grabbing the house of the petitioners and have inducted one stranger named Sudha in the house due to which petitioners social life has been disturbed.

For attaining protection for their own safety and security, petitioners moved an application before the District Magistrate, Lucknow, but no action was taken.

The Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 casts an obligation upon the district administration, especially, the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.

Bench stated that in view of Rule 21 of above-stated Rules, District Magistrate is duty-bound to take appropriate steps and action on the aforesaid application of the petitioners.

Court directed the District Magistrate to take immediate action as far as possible within a period of one month.

Petition to be listed for admission/final disposal after 6 weeks. [Dr Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1467, decided on 02-12-2020]

Advocates who appeared in the matter:

Petitioner’s Counsel: Daya Shanker Tripathi

Respondent’s Counsel: C.S.C

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued an order to exempt certain activities under the consolidated revised guidelines (, regarding the Nationwide lockdown to fight COVID-19.

Some queries have been received with regard to exemptions of specific services/activities within the categories already allowed in the guidelines issued under the above referred orders. In this regard, it is clarified that:-

  • Social sector under clause 8(i) include bed side attendants and care givers of senior citizens residing in their homes.
  • Public utilities under clause 11(v) include recharge facilities for prepaid mobile connection.
  • Supply of essential goods under clause 13(i) include food processing units such as bread factories, milk processing plants, flour mills, dal mills etc. located in urban areas.

However, as specified in the lockdown measures, National COVID-19 Directives and Standard Operating Procedure for social distancing for offices, workshops, factories and establishments must be ensured.

It has been communicated to all States to inform the district authorities and field agencies on the above accordingly, so as to avoid ambiguity at the ground level.

Click here to see Official Communication to States

Ministry of Home Affairs

[Press Release dt. 21-04-2020]

[Source: PIB]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.D. Dhanuka, J., addressed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in regard to an order passed by the Tribunal for Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The facts of the case stated that Respondent 1 had prayed for maintenance and eviction of her son, the petitioner and his family on various grounds for which the tribunal had passed an order in favour of Respondent 1. The said order of the tribunal was challenged by the petitioner son.

The contentions of the petitioner were that the order of the tribunal was impugned as the complaint was against the petitioner and not his son, wife, and daughter but the tribunal’s order was against all. He also submitted that the entire order is without jurisdiction as the tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 4 of the said Act.

While giving severity to the facts such as harassment, cruelty and torture being caused to Respondent 1 by the petitioner and his family, the Court firstly considered the issue of jurisdiction, for which it placed reliance on Sunny Paul v. State (NCT of Delhi),2017 SCC OnLine Del 7451 stating that the tribunal has ample of powers to pass an order of eviction under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Therefore, by highlighting the essence of Section 4 of the above-mentioned Act and on weighing the gravity of the issue in the present case, High Court dismissed the petition on finding no merits and upheld the Tribunal’s order. [Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2246, dated 26-06-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

The Union Cabinet has given its approval for extending the investment limit from Rs 7.5 lakhs to Rs 15 lakhs as well as extension of time limits for subscription from 4thMay 2018 to 31stMarch, 2020 under the Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandan Yojana (PMVVY) as part of Government’s commitment for financial inclusion and social security.

Further, as a boost to the Social Security initiatives for senior citizens, the investment limit of Rs 7.5 lakh per family in the existing scheme is enhanced to Rs 15 lakh per senior citizen in the modified PMVVY, thereby providing a larger social security cover to the Senior citizens.  It will enable upto Rs.10000 Pension per month for Senior Citizens.

As of March, 2018, a total number of 2.23 lakh senior citizens are being benefited under PMVVY. In the previous scheme of Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana-2014, a total number of 3.11 lakh senior citizens are being benefited.

Background: The PMVVY is being implemented through Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to provide social security during old age and protect elderly persons aged 60 years and above against a future fall in their interest income due to uncertain market conditions. The scheme provides an assured pension based on a guaranteed rate of return of 8% per annum for ten years, with an option to opt for pension on a monthly / quarterly / half yearly and annual basis. The differential return, i.e. the difference between the return generated by LIC and the assured return of 8% per annum would be borne by Government of India as subsidy on an annual basis.


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma, JJ., dismissed a Letters Patents Appeal before it. The matter before the Court was related to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Hereinafter ‘act’) and the issue before the Court for adjudication was whether the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction?

It was urged before the Court that a Maintenance Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and that the same is beyond the scope of proceedings for maintenance, instituted on behalf of a senior citizen. The facts leading up to the case were, that Respondent 3, a 68 year old man and father of the appellants, ran a printing press in a building occupied by him along with his ailing wife and his sons with their respective families in separate accommodations. Respondent 3 instituted a petition under the Act that despite having spent considerable amount on renovating the subject property, and providing separate residential accommodation to his sons, the latter backed out from their responsibility to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 20,000 collectively for his maintenance and for the requirements of his ailing wife. The Maintenance Tribunal had originally passed an order in Respondent 3’s favour, according to which, Appellant 2 and 3 were to vacate their respective residential portions and were also to refrain from indulging in arguing, making comments or other similar behaviour with the rest of the parties, including a son of Respondent 3 not implicated in the complaint. Instead of complying, the appellants instituted the present writ petition before the Court.

The Court referred to Section 32 of the Act r/w clause (i) of Section 2 along with the Rules promulgated under to adjudge 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 grounds of ill-treatment and non-maintenance. Applications disposed of. [Shadab Khairi v. State,  2018 SCC OnLine Del 7626, decided on 22.02.2018]