Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kaustubh Sharma vs Smt Suprabha Sharma on 17 August, 2022

Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

                                                        1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 17th OF AUGUST, 2022

                                         MISC. PETITION No. 3270 of 2022

                             Between:-
               1.            KAUSTUBH SHARMA S/O LT SH RADESHYAM
                             SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O SWASTH
                             NIKETAN OPPOSITE TO PUNJAB NATIONAL
                             BANK, JAIL ROAD, VINAY NAGAR SECTOR 1
                             BHODAPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.            SMT. PRATIMA SHARMA W/O SHRI KOSTUBH
                             SHARMA,    AGED    ABOUT   37  YEARS,
                             OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O SWASTH
                             NIKETN OPPOSITE TO PUNJAB NATIONAL
                             BANK, JAIL ROAD, VINAY NAGAR SECTOR-1
                             BHODAPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONERS
                             (BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAVI
                             SHANKAR GUPTA- ADVOCATE )

                             AND

                             SMT SUPRABHA SHARMA W/O LT SHRI
                             RADHESHAYAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 75
                             Y E A R S , R/O SWASTH NIKETAN PUNJAB
                             NATIONAL BANK, OPPOSITE TO JAIL ROAD
                             VINAY NAGAR SECTOR 1 BHODAPUR GWALIOR
                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                             (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA- ADVOCATE )

                           Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                         ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified India being aggrieved by the order of Collector, Gwalior, in case No.0012/B-

02:08:04 PM 121/2021-22 on 10.6.2022 passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of 2 Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act").

Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are son and daughter-in-law of respondent- Smt. Suprabha Sharma, who by occupation is an ex-doctor. Respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Act alleging that petitioners are treating her cruelly. Petitioner No.1 took out a sum of Rs.35 lacs from her account and when the respondent demanded the money back, petitioners threatened to falsely implicate her and her younger son Pranav Sharma in false cases. Due to fear, since 15.12.2021 she is residing at Chetakpuri in the house of her daughter. Said house was purchased by her through sale-deed. It is prayed that petitioners be evicted from her house. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer by its order dated 15.2.2022 dismissed her application mentioning that it is a family dispute, matter does not relate to maintenance of the respondent and she can approach the competent authority. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector, Gwalior. Learned appellate Court found that house in which petitioners are residing is in the ownership of respondent and they can live in the said house with the permission of the respondent, but the petitioners illegally ousted the respondent and by allowing the appeal, directed the concerned Tahsildar to evict the petitioners from the said premises within a period of seven days. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioners have preferred this Misc. Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the aforesaid Act there is no provision for eviction. The aforesaid Act was enacted with the object that Signature Not Verified though the parents can claim maintenance under the Cr.P.C., the procedure is Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 18-08-2022 02:08:04 PM both time consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have 3 simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others decided on 15.12.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3822/2020. In the aforesaid case, dispute arises out of an application filed by the Second and Third respondents against the appellant, who is their daughter-in-law. The Second and Third respondents are parents of the Fourth respondent, who is the estranged spouse of the appellant. The Second and Third respondents filed an application under provisions of the Act and inter alia sought the appellant and her daughter's eviction from a residential house in North Bengaluru. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and said order was affirmed upto the High Court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court at Principal Seat in the case of Ganesh & Anr. Vs. Indu Bai & Anr. decided on 25.4.2022 in Writ Appeal No.214/2021 and Single Bench decision of this Court at Principal Seat in the case of Smt. Amrita Bhatia and others vs. Baljeet Singh Bhatia and others decided on 12.2.2020 in Misc. Petition No.5217/2019.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

The Act has been enacted for protection of life and property of senior citizens. The Bill provides for:-

"œ(a) appropriate mechanism to be set-up to provide need-based 02:08:04 PM 4 maintenance to the parents and senior citizens;

(b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens;

(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons;

(d) setting-up of oldage homes in every district."€Â​ Section 4 of the Act provides for maintenance of parents and senior citizens. Section 5 provides for filing of an application for maintenance under Section 4. Section 6 provides for jurisdiction and procedure for the proceedings under Section 5. Section 7 provides for constitution of Maintenance Tribunal. Section 8 provides for summary procedure in case of inquiry. Section 9 provides for order of maintenance. Section 10 provides for alteration in allowance. There are various other provisions in the Act.

A perusal of overall Scheme of the Act clearly demonstrates that the intention of the legislature is to ensure that the parents and senior citizens should be ensured food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment etc. The maintenance includes provisions for food, clothing, medical assistance, treatment and residence. The provisions of Act have been given overriding effect by virtue of Section 3 of the Act on the provisions of any other enactment.

In the instant case, the house in question admittedly belongs to the respondent. It has come on record that respondent is residing elsewhere and the house in question is occupied by the petitioners. It is unfortunate to note that petitioner No.1 being son of the respondent is objecting for the shelter of her widowed mother, that too in a house purchased by the respondent herself.

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in Signing time: 18-08-2022 02:08:04 PM the aforesaid Act there is no provision for eviction is concerned, the object of 5 the Act not only includes maintenance, provision for food, clothing, medical assistance and treatment, but it also includes provision for residence€ and in the present case respondent in her application clearly mentioned that petitioner No.1 not only threatened the respondent and her handicapped son to implicate in false cases, but also committed Marpeet with them, and therefore, due to fear she is residing in the house of her daughter.

The decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.Vanitha (supra) has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh (supra) observing that facts being different, law laid down in the case of S.Vanitha (supra) would not be applicable in the case. The facts in the present case are almost similar to the case of Ganesh (supra).

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and overall object of the Act, the impugned order passed by the Collector, Gwalior, does not appear to be illegal or perverse. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-