The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice G.S.Kulkarni, directing a Mumbai resident and his wife to vacate his elderly parents' flat within a month said the Senior Citizens Act mandates that children or relatives are obligated to cater to the needs of the senior citizens so that they 'live a normal life', free of any harassment. (Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors v. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors)
The Court observed that the man and his family living on his 90-year-old father's property (which has been gifted by him to his daughter) against the parent's wishes was harassment and defeated the parents' right to a 'normal life.' Accordingly, it dismissed the son's appeal against the Maintenance Tribunal order asking him to vacate the premises.
The Court delivering the judgment reiterated the old saying about daughters standing by their parents forever but sons sticking around only till they get married.
The HC said, "Before parting and having noticed that this is a case where the old parents are suffering at the hands of the only son and daughter-in-law, it appears that there is certainly some element of truth in the popular saying that 'daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married' albeit there would surely be exemplary exceptions."
Facts of the case
The parents (father aged 90 years and mother aged 89 years) had approached the Maintenance Tribunal, against the harassment by their son. The Tribunal ordered the son and family to vacate the flat in which his elderly parents were residing.
The son and his family, challenging the Tribunal's order, filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that there are observations made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the orders passed on the mother’s application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act”) to the effect that the mother would not be entitled to an order directing the son to be removed from the shared household. Hence, according to him, once such observation was made, it would be binding on both the parents and hence the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order.
He secondly contended that the effect that under section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, the parents/senior citizens can seek relief only qua the property owned by such senior citizens. It was submitted that in the present case the flat in question is not owned by the parents but has been gifted by the father (respondent No.1) to his daughters, hence, the application of the parents to seek any orders of maintenance qua the flat in question could not have been granted by the Tribunal. He submitted that considering the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the subsequent proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, and although under both these proceedings orders are passed against the petitioners, a harmonious approach is required to be adopted so that the petitioners should not be removed from the flat in question.
The counsel for the parents argued that this was a clear case where the parents at such an advanced stage of their lives are tortured and harassed by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. He cited instances of inhuman treatment being meted out to the parents to grab the flat.
He submitted that Section 4 which provides for maintenance of parents and senior citizens cannot be construed narrowly, as according to him when sub-section (1) uses the words “out of the property owned by him” the definition of property as defined in Section 2(f) would be required to be looked into which defines “property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible and would include interest in such property”. He thus submitted the petitioners’ case that merely because the flat has been gifted by the father in favour of daughters would not be the property for the purposes of Section 4 is totally an untenable interpretation.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The High Court at the very outset observed that it was a "sad case" and expressed concern at the "misery of the parents"
The Court held that the senior citizens would in no manner be precluded from approaching the Tribunal, as Section 4 of the Act would include all facets of maintenance. Moreover, the father was not a party to the DV proceedings.
"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 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."
The bench observed that "Normal Life" under the Senior Citizens Act has a deeper meaning: Section 4 clearly provides 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.
The Court also noted that the term "property" under Section 2(f) means 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.
The High Court noted that the present case was a ‘classic case’ where the petitioners 1 and 2 intended to prevent the parents from leading a normal life at their old age of about 90 years.
The bench noted that the property in question was not an ancestral property on which petitioner 1 could claim any legal right so as to keep himself on such property along with his family and foist themselves on the parents against their wishes by remaining on the property without any legal rights.
Hence, Maintenance Tribunal had rightly recognized the rights of the parents on the property.
The Court concluding the matter noted that the present case was a story of desperate parents who intend to be at peace at such an advanced stage in life. Whether such bare minimum expectations and requirements should also be deprived to them by an affluent son, is a thought which the petitioners need to ponder on.
The bench adding to the above stated that the son seemed to be blinded in discharging his obligations to cater to his old and needy parents and on the contrary, dragged them to litigation.
While directing the petitioners to vacate the flat in question along with his family members, the bench remarked, "it's clear that in the present case the petitioners cannot set up any competing claim in the absence of any legal right whatsoever, in respect of the flat in question. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is wholly without any merit. It deserves to be rejected summarily. It is accordingly rejected."
Read Judgment ;
SOURCE ; latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments