Santosh Surendra Patil vs Surendra Narasgonda Patil And Ors on 23 June, 2017

1 wp1791.16.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1791 OF 2016

Shri Santosh Surendra Patil. … Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil ors. … Respondents.

Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for State.

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J
RESERVED ON : MARCH 30, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 23, 2017

P.C.:

1 This is an unfortunate litigation between old aged parents

and middle aged sons. The Petitioner herein impugned the order

dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune

in Criminal/SR/2/2015 confirming the order passed by the learned

Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016 under the

provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Talwalkar 1/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
2 wp1791.16.sxw

Citizen Act, 2007(for short “the said Act”) and Rules made

thereunder.

2 The Petitioner herein happens to be the elder son of

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 happens to be the

younger brother of the Petitioner.

3 The Petitioner had challenged the impugned Order before

the Vacation Court (Coram : P.D. Naik, J). It was submitted before

the Vacation Court that the Appeal was rejected by the Additional

Collector on 30th April, 2016 directing the Petitioner to vacate

residential premises, constructed and owned by respondent Nos. 1

and 2. It was submitted that the reasoned order of the Appellate

Authority was not available and therefore, the advocate representing

the Petitioner had no idea as to whether any reasoned order is passed.

He had drawn the attention of the Vacation Court to the single line

operative order. It appears that the learned APP had placed on record

the communication received by Nigadi Police Station directing the

Talwalkar 2/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
3 wp1791.16.sxw

police to execute order dated 30th April, 2016 and file a compliance

report. It was also submitted that the Petitioner was willing to take

care of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that no prejudice would be

caused to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the eventuality that the

order is stayed. Considering the submission, this Court (Coram : P.D.

Naik, J) was pleased to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On

the date of filing of the petition, spare copies were not supplied and

therefore, notices could not be issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The spare copies were supplied only on 16th May, 2016. Thereafter

on 10/6/2016, the matter was listed for admission. The Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 had caused their appearance. On 15/7/2016 interim

relief was continued.

4 Before reverting to the facts of the case, it would be

necessary to see the need for enactment of the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Filial responsibility

laws are derived from England’s Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601,

which made blood relatives responsible for the support of their family

Talwalkar 3/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
4 wp1791.16.sxw

members, including aging parents. In fact, such a law can be traced

back to the third century in Roman Society. The moral obligation to

support one’s aged parents can be found in many different cultures

and religions. A peculiar tension arises in the eventuality when this

moral obligation crystallizes into a duty enforceable by law. Just like

all other religious code, the need for enactment of the present act was

the question which needed to be answered as to whether besides

filial responsibility laws, no legal rules satisfies what duty, if any,

children owe to their parents. The argument that, such coercive

legislation may do little to encourage positive and normal

relationship and merely enables indigent and helpless parents to sue

their children for financial support or seek enforcement of mental

peace against their children cannot hold any substance as by enacting

this Act, the State has taken upon itself the guardianship of Senior

Citizens and old aged infirm parents.

5 It is in this backdrop that the facts of the present case

need to be examined which are as follows :

Talwalkar 4/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
5 wp1791.16.sxw

(i) On 29/7/2015 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application

before the District Collector under the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The respondent No. 1 had

contended in his application that at the time of filing of the

application, he was about 78 years old. That in 1991 he retired from

M/s. Advani Orlicorn Company, where he was working as machine

shop supervisor. Since it was a private job, he was not entitled for

pension. On retirement he had received Rs. 6 Lakhs towards

Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc.

(ii) The respondent No.2 was working as a teacher in Municipal

School during the period 1966 to 1995 and was officiating as a Head

Mistress during the period 1995 to 2001. At the time of filing of the

complaint, she was receiving pension of Rs. 13,000/- per month and

therefore, she could run the family and meet the medical expenses of

her husband. Upon retirement, the respondent No. 2 had received Rs.

3,75,000/- towards pension and gratuity.

Talwalkar 5/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
6 wp1791.16.sxw

(iii) While in service, respondent No. 1 had obtained loan from

Pawana Sahakari Bank and Cosmos Bank and had constructed the

ground floor of his house. He had also borrowed money from his

brother-in-law. He had repaid that amount.

(iv) After retirement, he had constructed the first floor of the house.

While constructing the first floor of the house, he had anticipated

that he would give the said premises on rent and earn regular income

from the same and therefore, had invested the said amount in

constructing the first floor.

(v) That he was diagnosed with diabetes in the year 1982. In the

year 2002 due to blood hemorrhage in the left eye, he had to undergo

laser treatment but had lost vision of right eye and had blurred vision

in left eye. He was thereby incapacitated to work and earn his living

after retirement.

Talwalkar 6/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
7 wp1791.16.sxw

(vi) That his sons were not looking after him. He had to be

operated on his left leg. During the said operation, he was bed

ridden for almost 5 months.

(vii) His elder son i.e. present petitioner got married on 5/12/1994.

He was working as a partner in Shriyash Classes. That his younger

son Sandeep was running an industry, which had to be closed down.

The parents were not aware of the nature of business of the younger

son. His younger son got married on 26 th March, 1998. Since there

was difference of opinion in the house, the elder son i.e. the Petitioner

and his wife had started living separately in the same bungalow. The

elder son i.e. the petitioner had not provided any help to the

Respondents-parents.

(viii) His daughter was married in the year 1990 and was living in the

matrimonial home. The younger son i.e. respondent No. 3 had lived

with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 initially for a period of 10 years and

subsequently, he had also decided to live separately. Their daughter

Talwalkar 7/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
8 wp1791.16.sxw

was residing in a tin shed on the second floor and she used to look

after them.

(ix) According to the respondent No. 1/complainant, his elder son

was doing an independent business and residing separately with his

wife. He had never paid a single farthing to his parents. He had not

even enquired about their welfare. Thereafter the complainant got his

younger son married. The younger son i.e. respondent No. 3 had

stayed with the complainant for almost 10 years.

(x) The complainant and his wife were running family. The

complainant-father had no source of income and therefore, there used

to be intermittent quarrel. For some time, they had stayed with their

daughter. She had also lent helping hand them to the best of her

capacity.

(xi) Sunanda Patil i.e. respondent No. 2 was working as principal of

school, run by Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. She is

Talwalkar 8/38

::: Uploaded on – 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
9 wp1791.16.sxw

earning pension of Rs. 13,000/-. She had earned about Rs.

3,75,000/- from her provident fund and gratuity fund, which was her

only financial asset. She had spent a lot of money towards domestic

expenses such as releasing their mortgaged property at their native

place, children’s education, their marriage etc. Most of the pensionary

amount was spent towards their medical expenses and therefore,

they could not give any financial assistance to their sons. That the

respondent No. 3 was pestering his parents to give financial help.

(xii) It is specifically contended that in the year 2004 when the

couple i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were suffering from several

ailment, their elder son had got executed a Memorandum of

Understanding(for short MOU) on Rs. 100 non-Judicial stamp paper

which spelt that the ground floor of the house would remain in his

possession. That the MOU was drafted type without the consent of

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he had obtained their signatures

when they were ailing and bed ridden. He had brought alongwith

him a public notary advocate advocate Shri Kumthe.

Talwalkar                                 9/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
10 wp1791.16.sxw

(xiii) As per the said MOU, the elder son was to pay the tax towards

ground floor. In fact, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were paying tax

towards whole building and the elder son had reimbursed his share.

As per the MOU the elder son was to pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- per

month to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 commencing from 30/6/2004.

Thereafter, he was to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month and thereafter, pay

Rs. 5,000/- per month commencing from 31/7/2015 for 108 months.

It is pertinent to note that the elder son had resiled from the MOU.

(xiv) The respondent No. 3 was not residing with his parents.

However, portion of the first floor, which is to be shared by him was

given on rent without the consent of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He

used to collect rent and had never enquired about his parents. The

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no knowledge about the quantum of

rent received by him. The younger son i.e. Respondent No. 3 had

obtained loan from Rupee Bank and the same was repaid by the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The amount was Rs. 2,65,000/-. In fact,

Talwalkar 10/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
11 wp1791.16.sxw

the respondent No. 2 had sold 15 tolas of gold to repay the said

amount.

(xv) It is contended in the complaint that their daughter Sujata Jain

was residing in the tin shed on the terrace of their house and was

paying Rs. 500/- towards rent. In the year 2009, both the sons had

quarreled with Sujata. She had vacated the said premises. She was

divorced in the year 2010. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were

residing in 2 rooms on the first floor. It is also contended that the tin

shed was given on rent and a portion of the rental amount was given

to Sujata as she was divorced and her son was pursuing his education

in engineering and the daughter was studying MBA.

(xvi) It is specifically contended in the complaint that the bungalow

was constructed in such a manner that it would accommodate both

the sons and the daughter. However, ground floor was in the

possession of the elder son and on the first floor two rooms were

given on rent by the younger son. The elder son had agreed to vacate

Talwalkar 11/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
12 wp1791.16.sxw

the ground floor on the condition that the first floor would be

transferred in his name. The state of affairs had driven the couple i.e.

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in depression. They were suffering from

Arthritis. They were unable to ascend and descend steps from the

first floor. They had fallen and had to undergo surgery. However,

their children had ignored them and did not provide for medical aid.

Their daughter-in-law Sanyogita had threatened them that in the

eventuality they insisted upon them to vacate the premises she would

file criminal case against them. The parents of Sanyogita had also

advised respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to behave according to whims of

Sanyogita or else they would be prosecuted.

(xvii) In the year 2013 and on 15/5/2015 the respondent Nos. 1 and

2 had lodged complaint against Santosh and his wife. They had also

issued a legal notice to him on 13.5.2013. They had not filed any

complaint further due to love and compassion for their sons. They

were fed up with the atrocities meted out to them by their sons and

daughter in law and therefore, they were constrained to approach the

Talwalkar 12/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
13 wp1791.16.sxw

Collector under the Provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and Rules made thereunder(hereinafter

referred as Act of 2007).

(xviii)The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune (Tribunal constituted under

said Act) by the Judgment and Order dated 20/2/2016 was pleased

to allow the Petition. The Authority had directed the Petitioner to

vacate the ground floor of the bungalow and had further directed the

Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance

to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(xix) Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner had filed an

appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had

stayed the order on 31st March, 2016. The Appellate Authority had

extended the same from time to time and after giving hearing to both

the parties, the Appeal was dismissed.

Talwalkar                              13/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
14 wp1791.16.sxw

6 Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner has filed

this Criminal Writ Petition. The order was stayed by the Vacation

Court on 10/5/2016. The order passed by the SDO directing the

Petitioner to vacate the bungalow was stayed mainly on the ground

that the reasoned order of the Appellate Authority was not available

on the date of filing of the Petition.

7 On the first date of the hearing, the Petitioner had shown

his willingness to take care of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and in

view of that, the interim relief was extended from time to time. On

11/8/2016, the matter was heard at length. The learned Counsel for

the Petitioner had submitted that he was willing to part with the

ground floor premises in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and

that he would stay on the first floor.

8 It was brought to the notice of this Court that the

Respondent No. 3 i.e. younger son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had

come to stay in the said premises only after interim orders were

Talwalkar 14/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:24 :::
15 wp1791.16.sxw

passed by this Court on 10/5/2016. During the pendency of the

proceedings and even prior to that, the Respondent No. 3 was

residing separately with his family. Upon a query made by this Court,

the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 had submitted that the

Respondent No. 3 had grave apprehension that the parents are filing

the complaint against the sons only to secure the future of their

daughter who is divorcee and in order to secure his own interest in

the property, he had come to reside in the said premises. The learned

Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have submitted that

their sister is instrumental in instigating their parents to file complaint

against them.

9 On the day of the hearing, the Petitioner was in

possession of the ground floor of the said bungalow, on the first floor,

the respondent No. 3 had occupied 3 rooms, whereas the old parents

were residing in two rooms. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner

had attempted to resolve the issue before the Court by submitting that

Talwalkar 15/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
16 wp1791.16.sxw

he was willing to reside on the first floor and that the parents would

stay on the ground floor.

10 The respondent-parents were present in the Court and

had submitted that the orders passed by the Authorities should be

implemented and that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 be

directed to withdraw themselves from the bungalow and vacate the

residential premises. On the basis of their past experience with their

sons, they do not wish to permit them to stay in the said bungalow, as

they were deeply hurt by the conduct of the Petitioner and the

Respondent No. 3. At that juncture, the Court had asked the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner as to how much time, they would require to

vacate the said premises. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

the Respondent No. 3 expressed that the matter be decided on merits.

The learned Counsel had requested for time to take instructions. The

matter was adjourned and the interim orders were continued.

Talwalkar                                  16/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
17 wp1791.16.sxw

11 On 27/9/2016 the matter was heard at length. Taking

into consideration the conduct of the Petitioner and the arguments

advanced across the bar, interim relief was vacated and this Court

had passed order to the effect that pendency of this Petition shall not

be construed as a stay to the execution and implementation of the

impugned order dated 30/4/2016.

12 On 21st March, 2017, the learned Counsel for the original

complainant i.e. the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had made a

statement that despite the fact that the interim relief was vacated, the

Petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had ingressed the house and had

kept their lien on the said premises. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

had specifically submitted before the Court that their movements are

restricted because of the encroachment by the Petitioner and the

respondent No. 3. They are unable to live in peace. That the

situation was life threatening. It was in those circumstances that the

PSI of Nigadi Police Station was directed to visit the premises and

Talwalkar 17/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
18 wp1791.16.sxw

take photographs as well as record the statement of the tenants and

neighbours.

13 The matter was finally heard on 30th March, 2017 and the

photographs were placed on record for the perusal of this Court. It

had shocked the conscience of the Court that sons had occupied the

garage. All the house hold articles and domestic appliances were

stocked just outside the main door of the house. The Petitioner had

put up the furniture and was staying in the said area. The Petitioner

and the Respondent No. 3 had covered the said area with tarpaulin

and were staying there. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were present

in the Court and had demonstrated their grief by disclosing the

atrocities meted out to them at the hands of the Petitioner and

Respondent No.3 after the interim relief was vacated.

14 By virtue of Chapter IV of the Constitution issues

pertaining to the elderly were taken into consideration. In fact, they

were not enforceable by law. Maintenance of parents by their

Talwalkar 18/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
19 wp1791.16.sxw

children is contemplated under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption

and Maintenance Act 1956. There is similar provision under the

Muslim Law. However, these provisions were only moral

obligations. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a provision was

introduced wherein elderly persons could approach the court seeking

maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and what was necessary to be considered by the Court was that

there should be sufficient material to indicate that the children have

neglected to maintain their elderly parents, who cannot maintain

themselves.

15 By Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007, a provision was made to the effect that if

Petitioner would substantiate before the Tribunal that there is a

neglect, it may order the children/relatives to give monthly allowance

upto Rs. 10,000/-. The procedure of filing the complaint was made

simpler. It was also provided that any voluntary organisation could

help the senior citizen to approach the tribunal. Further provision

Talwalkar 19/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
20 wp1791.16.sxw

was made that the Tribunal could take up cause suo moto on failure

to comply with the maintenance order.

16 Keeping in view the growing problems of the elders, the

legislature has made earnest endeavour to introduce an Act in the

interest of senior citizens and parents who are old and infirm. It was

also noticed by the Legislature that apart from the economic

stringencies, due to lack of source of income, senior citizens and

parents were also exposed to emotional neglect and social insecurity.

The procedure to ventilate the grievances were made simpler.

17 It is also provided in the Act that if the children or

relatives, so ordered, fails without sufficient cause to comply with

the order, the Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a

warrant for levying fine and sentence such person to imprisonment,

which may extend to one month or only payment of maintenance.

Talwalkar                                     20/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
21 wp1791.16.sxw

18 In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that even

after interim relief was vacated by this Court, the maintenance

amount was not paid and that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.

3 had continued to harass the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by staying in

the same premises, which in fact is a self acquired property of the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Petitioner had candidly submitted

before this Court that he holds lien over the said property by virtue

of being the son of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Needless to state

that this is not an ancestral property.

19 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed implicit

reliance upon the Memorandum of Understanding purportedly

executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on

30/6/2004. A non-judicial stamp was purchased by the Petitioner

on 22/6/2004. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the

said MOU was executed when the Respondent No. 1 was hospitalised

and was in dire need of care, emotional security, medical aid etc. It

was agreed in the MOU that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would

Talwalkar 21/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
22 wp1791.16.sxw

permit the Petitioner to reside in the said bungalow. That under no

circumstances the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could ask the Petitioner

to vacate the premises. That the Petitioner would renovate the said

premises at his own cost. The Petitioner was to seek a loan of Rs. 2

Lakhs for the purpose of renovation. That the Petitioner would pay

the property tax only to the extent of the ground floor. The water bill

would be paid on the basis of the consumption made by the

respective parties. That the Petitioner would pay Rs. 3000/- to his

parents for the first 12 months, Rs. 4000/- for the next 12 months

and thereafter Rs. 5000/- per month during their life time.

20 The Petitioner submits that he has incurred expenses for

renovation. That he is paying the property tax to the extent of the

ground floor which is in his possession. and that he is also extending

said amount to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Memorandum of

Understanding was voluntarily executed by his parents and that the

Talwalkar 22/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
23 wp1791.16.sxw

parents had undertaken that they would not evict the Petitioner from

the said premises under any circumstances.

21 On 15/5/2015 the parents had to approach the police

station complaining therein that the Petitioner is addicted to alcohol

and is insisting upon them to transfer the property in his name and

that he abused them and has also assaulted them. A non-cognizable

offence is registered against the Petitioner on the basis of the said

complaint. On 13/5/2016 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed

complaint, which was again registered as non-cognizable offence.

22 The subsequent conduct of the Petitioner and his wife is

also brought before this Court. On 5/11/2016 Sanyogita, wife of

Petitioner Santosh had filed a complaint before the learned JMFC,

Pimpri, Morwadi, Pune, thereby alleging domestic violence against

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said case is registered as 1057 of

2016. On 10/11/2016 the Petitioner broke open the lock of the

ground floor from the rear side and occupied the same by keeping his

Talwalkar 23/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
24 wp1791.16.sxw

household articles. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were constrained to

call the police and it was of no avail. On 10/11/2016 the Petitioner

had called upon the brother of the Respondent No. 2 and insisted

upon the respondents-parents to let out the premises on rent to

them. They had coerced the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to sign on

some document, which was not read over to them. On 13/11/2016

the police from the Nigadi Police Station had prepared a false

panchanama showing that the Petitioner had complied with the

order dated 8/11/2016 passed by the High Court and have handed

over the vacant possession. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had

continued to harass their parents by threatening them of dire

consequences and danger to their life. The parents were being

abused by the Petitioner. It is apparent that they had no regard for

the judicial orders passed by this Court.

23 This Court, to resolve the rival contentions, had called for

the photographs of the said building, as there was an allegation by

the parents that their movements are restricted and the Petitioner

Talwalkar 24/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
25 wp1791.16.sxw

and his wife were only creating nuisance to make their life

miserable. The learned APP has placed on record the photographs

taken by the police which clearly substantiate the allegations made by

the parents.

24 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also candidly

admitted that the Petitioner has made his house in the open premises

i.e. within the compound of the bungalow. It is contended by the

learned APP that the Petitioner has also parked his car inside the

premises. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not denied the

said contention and has submitted that the Petitioner has a car which

he uses for his emergency purposes.

25 Upon perusal of the records, taking into consideration the

facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the respective

parties, it is crystal clear that the parents i.e. the Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 who are above 70 years old are being harassed by the

Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3. That the Petitioner and

Talwalkar 25/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
26 wp1791.16.sxw

Respondent No. 3 are interested only in the property of the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. That Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are drawing

pensionary benefits and that is the only source of their income.

However, it is not sufficient to help them to take sufficient medical

aid. They are not only being neglected by their son, but also

traumatized by the ill-treatment meted to them by their sons, who are

forcing them to transfer their property in their own name.

26 It is apparent that aging has become a major social

challenge and despite provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for maintenance, it was deemed necessary to have inexpensive

and expeditious measures to claim maintenance for the parents. The

Act of 2007 casts an obligation upon the children to maintain their

old aging parents and make them fully secured in the advanced stage

of life and not just claim right of inheritance in the properties, which

they have earned by soil and toil. It is to make the children aware

that the parents need medical care and it is incumbent upon them to

extend all possible medical aid. It was found necessary to remind the

Talwalkar 26/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
27 wp1791.16.sxw

children that they were given all possible medical care in their

childhood by the parents. In todays set of affairs, the contention of

the grown-up children is that it was the duty of the parents to look

after their children and the same was not demanded by them.

Similarly, the statutory duty is now cast upon the children also to

look after their aged parents and not just claim right of inheritance.

27 By virtue of the implementation of this Act, boundaries

between morality and illegality would be covered in a simpler

manner as the purpose of the common overlapping between the two

is often to protect most vulnerable section of the society.

28 In the present case, the Petitioner and the Respondent

No.3 are aggrieved by the apprehension that the parents are likely to

maintain the daughter's share in the property and therefore, they are

coercing the parents to transfer the property in their name.

Talwalkar                                   27/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
28 wp1791.16.sxw

29 In Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, (2011)

9 SCC 788 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in view

of the amendment of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the

daughter is entitled to share in the ancestral property and is a co-

parcener as if she had been a son with effect from 9/9/2005. The

daughter of co-parcener becomes co-parcener by birth in her own

rights and liability in the same manner as the son. The forcible

entrance of the Respondent No. 3 in the house is deprecated.

30 The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the matter

like the present one cannot be dealt with under the caption of moral

obligation or just sensitivity towards a particular case and therefore,

this Court had taken into consideration, at the outset, the need for

enactment of the present Act. In order to strike the balance between

the contentions of both the parties, this Court had called for the

photographs of the bungalow to ascertain the state of affairs after

vacating the interim relief. The conduct of the daughter-in-law i.e.

the wife of the Petitioner in filing a case under the Domestic Violence

Talwalkar 28/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
29 wp1791.16.sxw

Act against the in-laws and her husband speaks volumes for itself.

Needless to say that the said Petition was filed after vacating interim

relief rather during the pendency of the present petition.

31 Secondly, the Petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are

able bodied and have their source of income and yet they have

chosen to stay in the compound of the said bungalow. The learned

Counsel for the complainant has rightly submitted that the Petitioner

could have shifted in a rented premises to demonstrate his bonafide.

In the course of hearing of the Petition, the Petitioner had submitted

that he is ready to maintain his parents. At the same time, at the

stage of final hearing, it is submitted that the Petitioner has no

sufficient source of income and therefore, could not take any

premises on rent and was therefore, constrained to stay in the

compound of the said bungalow. The conduct of the Petitioner and

the Respondent No. 3 is more than sufficient to understand acrimony

faced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Talwalkar                                    29/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
30 wp1791.16.sxw

32 It is apparent that the family responsibilities are as

understood, less binding upon the Petitioner and the respondent No.

3. The Petitioner has insisted upon executing the MOU and

therefore, according to the Petitioner, he cannot be evicted from the

said house during his life time. The respondents-parents had

submitted that they were coerced to sign the said MOU. In any case,

it shocks the conscience of the Court that the Petitioner could get the

MOU executed when the parents were ailing. That was the time

when they needed care and medical aid. But the Petitioner had

forced them to sign the MOU. The same cannot be executed. It was

a conditional MOU. It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to

abide by his obligations.

33 In the facts of the case, it is apparent on the face of the

record that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 are making

attempts to throw out their aged parents from the property which

the parents have acquired during their life time. It is a perfect

example of the insensitivity of the children towards their aged

Talwalkar 30/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
31 wp1791.16.sxw

parents/senior citizens. It is clear that the responsibilities towards

the parents have degenerated.

34 It is reiterated that in such a case like the present one, the

morality of society or the moral conviction of the Court would take

back seat, as a duty is cast upon the Court to enforce the statutory

provisions and implement the rule of law. It would be in the given

facts of the case, the Petition deserves to be dismissed.

35 The manner in which the Petition was contested by the

Petitioner attempting to falsify every allegation, reflects upon their

conduct. There is record to show that the respondents-parents had to

approach the police station on more than two occasions to take

coercive action against their own children, is the convincing evidence

to dismiss the Petition.

36 It is apparent that the parents in the present case are not

only exposed to emotional neglect, feeling of rejection, social

Talwalkar 31/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
32 wp1791.16.sxw

insecurity, but to physical and financial support also. It has become a

major challenge to their very peaceful existence. It is fundamental

right of the present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to seek a life of dignity,

peace and liberty at this stage and that it is necessary to enforce the

provisions of law.

37 Section 21 of the said Act stipulates thus :

21. Measures for publicity awareness, etc., for welfare of

senior citizen.-

The State Government shall, take all measures to ensure that

--

i. the provisions of this Act are given wide publicity through
public media including the television, radio and the print, at
regular intervals;

ii. the Central Government and State Government Officers,
including the police officers and the members of the judicial
service, are given periodic sensitization and awareness training
on the issues relating to this Act;

iii. effective co-ordination between the services provided by
the concerned Ministries or Departments dealing with law,
home affairs, health and welfare, to address the issues relating
to the welfare of the senior citizens and periodical review of
the same is conducted.

Talwalkar                                     32/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
33 wp1791.16.sxw

38 The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 necessitates that the State Government shall take

all measures to give wide publicity through public media including

television, radio and by regular intervals periodic sensitization and

awareness on the issues relating to this Act to the public and police

officers and the members of judicial services and to make effective

coordination between the services provided by the concerned

departments dealing with the law, Home Affairs, Health and Welfare

to address the issue relating to the welfare of the senior citizens and

their periodical review.

39 It is argued that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not

filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and therefore, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would

not be entitled under the provisions of the Act of 2007. In fact, the

provisions of Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. were not sufficient to meet

the cause and protect the senior citizens and parents. The present act

is not only restricted to maintain the aged parents, but cast an

Talwalkar 33/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
34 wp1791.16.sxw

obligation on the person who inherit the property of the aged parents

to maintain such aged relatives. Section 27 of the Act of 2007

stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Civil Code is barred with

respect to any matters to which any provisions of the Act of 2007

applies. Further by virtue of section 3 of the Act of 2007, the

provisions for an overriding effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent contained in any other statute.

40 Section 11 of the said Act stipulates thus :

11. Enforcement of order of maintenance.-

1. A copy or the order of maintenance and including the
order regarding expenses of proceedings, as the case
may be, shall be given without payment of any fee to
the senior citizen or to parent, as the case may be, in
whose favour it is made and such order may be enforced
by any Tribunal in any place where the person against
whom it is made, such Tribunal on being satisfied as to
the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the
allowance, or as the case may be, expenses, due.

2. A maintenance order made under this Act shall have the
same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter
IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the
execution of such order by that Code.

Talwalkar                                     34/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
35 wp1791.16.sxw

The intent of the act is to provide simple, inexpensive, speedy remedy

to the parents and senior citizens who are in distress by way of

summary proceedings. Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure

would therefore, not be sufficient to meet the welfare of the old aged

parents and senior citizens.

41 Under section 23 of the Act of 2007 maintenance tribunal

can issue an eviction order to ensure that the senior citizens live

peacefully in their house without being forced to accommodate a son

who physically assaults and mentally harasses them or threatens to

dispossess them.

42 The Petitioner is placing implicit reliance on the MOU

which does not have any probative value taking into consideration the

circumstances, in which it was executed. The Act of 2007 confers on

the maintenance tribunal express power to declare a transfer of

property void at the option of the transferor. Under section 23 of the

said Act, it is to be presumed that the intent of the legislature is to

Talwalkar 35/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
36 wp1791.16.sxw

empower the maintenance tribunal to pass effective and meaningful

orders including consequential directions to give effect to the said

order. The Act empowers the tribunal to grant speedy consequential

relief. In the present case, although the interim relief was vacated,

the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 has continued to harass the

parents and therefore, it is necessary to evict the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 3 from the said bungalow i.e. i.e. Girnar Bungalow,

Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi, District Pune.

43 It is in these circumstances that the Writ Petition being

sans merits stands dismissed on the following terms:

(i) The Order passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer,

Pune in Criminal/SR/2/2015 and confirmed by the learned

Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016, Pune is

hereby maintained.

(ii) The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 to pay Rs.

2,000/- each to the parents/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1 st

August, 2017.

Talwalkar                                   36/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
37 wp1791.16.sxw

(iii) The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 are further

directed to vacate the premises of bungalow i.e. Girnar

Bungalow, Plot No. 59, Sector No. 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigadi,

District Pune within two weeks from the date of passing of this

order.

(iv) In the eventuality that the Petitioner and Respondent No.

3 do not vacate the premises of above bungalow voluntarily the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to seek police aid to

execute the present order.

(v) The Petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- towards the

cost of litigation to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly within 2

weeks from today. The amount to be deposited before the

Tribunal, Pune constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which shall not be

included in the maintenance amount.

(vi) The Tribunal at Pune is hereby directed to implement and

execute the Order dated 20/2/2016 passed by the Sub-

Talwalkar                                 37/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::
38 wp1791.16.sxw

Divisional Officer, Pune in Criminal/SR/2/2015 within two

weeks from today.

44 This Court is hopeful that the Government of Maharashtra

would take effective steps to enforce Section 21 to bring about

awareness of this Act and implement Section 21 of the Maintenance

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

45 The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J)

Talwalkar 38/38

::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 24/06/2017 01:09:25 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *