Delhi High Court - Orders
Divya vs Manish Ahlawat & Ors on 30 January, 2023
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~132
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1094/2023
DIVYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan
Porwal, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Mr.
Kumkum Mandhanya, Ms. Rachna
Nain & Mr. Rishabh Munjal,
Advocates (M-9312411311)
versus
MANISH AHLAWAT & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha, Mr. Vivek
Chauratia & Mr. Pavit Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 30.01.2023
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 4335/2023 & 4336/2023 (for exceptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 1094/2023 & CM APPL. 4337/2023
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Ms. Divya, challenging the order dated 20th December, 2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (North) (hereinafter 'ADM') in Case No. ADM/North/Senior Citizen/2/2021/2444-2446 titled Smt. Renu Ahlawat v. Sh. Manish Ahlawat. Vide the impugned order, the ADM has restrained the Petitioner and her husband- Respondent No.1 from entering property bearing no. 137/138, A-3, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 (hereinafter 'subject premises'). The order was passed by the ADM upon a complaint filed by the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the Petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.01.2023 14:34:07 (hereafter 'Act').
4. The present petition raises an important issue as to whether the complainants i.e., mother-in-law and father-in-law of the Petitioner could have maintained a complaint for eviction of the Petitioner, under Chapter-5 of the Act.
5. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the complainants are not above the age of 60 years. Thus, the complaint itself is not maintainable. She, therefore, seeks setting aside of the impugned order passed by the ADM.
6. Ld. counsel for the Respondents submits that this order of the ADM is appealable to the Divisional Commissioner and the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal.
7. A perusal of Section 2(h) of the Act would show that a senior citizen under this Act would be only such person who is either 60 years of age or above. Chapter 2 of the Act deals with the 'Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens' and Chapter 5 deals with the 'Protection of Life and Property of Senior Citizen'. It is observed by the Court that the word 'parents' is missing from Chapter 5. Accordingly, the issue would require consideration.
8. Let a copy of the paper book be served upon ld. Counsel for the Respondents by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
9. It is made clear that the impugned order shall not affect the adjudication of any other proceedings which may be pending between the parties. List on 13th March, 2023.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 30, 2023/Rahul/SK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.01.2023 14:34:07