Meetu Sagar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 20 November, 2017

CWP-26373-2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

CWP No.26373 of 2017
Date of decision: November 20, 2017

Meetu Sagar …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. Bimal Maini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

Petitioner has impugned order dated 18.09.2017, passed by

District Magistrate, Panchkula, allowing the application filed by her mother-

in-law seeking eviction of petitioner from the house in question.

Sudha Sagar (respondent No.3 herein) filed a petition under the

Senior Citizens Welfare and Maintenance Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to

as “2007 Act”) stating that petitioner and her husband had made her life

miserable by picking up quarrels. In her old age, she was being subjected to

mental and physical harassment. As she alongwith her husband were

exclusive owners of the property, they had right to live peacefully without

disturbance from any quarter.

It appears, the District Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner

and her husband on 25.8.2017 and 13.9.2017. They failed to appear. As a

result, the authority proceeded to decide the case. It is undisputed that

respondent No.3 Sudha Sagar and her husband namely, Daya Sagar are

1 of 2
23-11-2017 22:29:04 :::
CWP-26373-2017 2

owners of the property and have right to live peacefully in their old age.

There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. Plea

of the petitioner that matrimonial litigation between her and her husband has

been pending, has no bearing on the proceedings under the 2007 Act.

During the course of hearing, a query was put to the petitioner whether any

complaint regarding matrimonial discord was made to any authority since

solemnization of marriage on 9.12.2004. In response, it was stated that first

complaint was made on 14.11.2016. In view of the fact that petitioner and

her husband lived peacefully for almost twelve years and no complaint of

harassment or maltreatment was made by the petitioner, possibility of this

plea having been taken to defeat the rights of the respondent No.3 cannot be

ruled out. Petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
November 20, 2017
‘Rajpal’

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

2 of 2
23-11-2017 22:29:06 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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