'Land Where Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Manuscripted, Ill-Treatment To Parents Is Alarming & Disturbing', Rajasthan HC Directs Son & His Wife To Vacate House

Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition filed by son and his wife, ruled,

"Therefore, the petitioners along with their family are directed to honor the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 and vacate the premises within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment on their own cost and restore the house in vacant manner and in appropriate condition to the respondent-mother with due respect. The SHO of the concerned Police Station may be provided a copy of this judgment by the Registrar (Judicial) for carrying out the directions, within the stipulated time, giving full security to the respondent. The respondent will be at liberty to permit the petitioner and his family to visit or live in the disputed property in future, if she so chooses."

Background

Essentially, the petition is filed against the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal whereby petitioners were directed to vacate the property and the rights of the respondent mother were restored. Notably, in 2004, the disputed property was purchased and registered by the respondent-mother, who is a 72 year widow living in Ahmedabad along with her married daughter for the last 5 years The petitioners are running a business having turnover of approximately Rs. 25 lacs and are living in the aforesaid property and possess major portion of the property. The respondent-mother is financially-independent and receives monthly pension of approximately 40,000/- Rs.

In 2006, the petitioner left the house with his newly married wife and again re-entered the house in the year 2010, on advice of relatives, to take care of his respondent mother. He has invested approximately Rs. 8 lacs out of joint account, of his mother and himself, which is disputed by the respondent. In this regard, the petitioner has also filed one Civil Suit No. 249/2019 for declaration, partition and permanent injunction claiming 85% share in the said property.

The respondent-mother requested the court that the petitioners be evicted along-with their family from the disputed property as she is being ill-treated by them, there is a threat to her life if she lives with them and physical and mental abuse is being meted out to her by the petitioners. Whereas, the claim of the petitioner is that these are mere allegations and he is ready to live with his mother, and has right over the disputed property as he has spent Rs. 8 lacs from his own funds and therefore, cannot be evicted from the disputed property.

Court's Observations

The court refused to set aside Tribunal's order and observed that ill-treatment is meted out to the respondent-mother, she is expelled from her own house, allegations of mental, physical and social abuse have been levelled against the petitioners and during the proceedings before this court respondent-mother categorically submitted that living with the petitioners would pose a threat to her life and mental wellbeing.

It was also observed by the court that Section 3 of the Act of 2007 makes the Act supreme having overriding effect if the same is inconsistent with the provisions of any other Act as in times when social construct of the society is changing and transforming, its important to keep the social fabric and values intact and not let them tumble.

The court opined that the Tribunal's order is justified because of the following reasons:

(i) The court stated that as per Section 2(b) and 2(k) of the Act of 2007, it was the duty of petitioner-son to maintain his mother and take care of her welfare as she is not only a senior citizen, but his only living parent as well and the petitioner son has to provide her with clothing, food, residence and medical attention/treatment. However, the contrary is happening in this situation, opined the court. The court added that respondent-mother does not need any maintenance from her petitioner-son, she is financially independent and has the property in her name, still she is being abused physically, mentally and socially by the petitioners, who have deprived her from living peacefully in her own house despite the Tribunal order passed in the respondent's favor.

(ii) The court observed that the respondent-mother, despite of being the owner of the disputed property, was ousted out of it by the petitioners and was meted out with severe ill- treatment, including mental, social and physical abuse by the petitioners and had to live with her married daughter against the hindu social norms, especially at such an elderly age, and such act/s of the petitioners are violative of her right to live with dignity under Article 21. The court stated that being the owner of disputed property and as per mandate of her husband's will, she has the first right to live in the disputed property in the way she desires.

(iii) Placing reliance on Apex Court's decision, the court ruled that it is to the choice of the parents whether they want their son to be living with them or not when ill treatment is being meted out to them. The court stated that respondent mother in-person categorically submitted that living with the petitioners poses a threat to her life, and if she is directed to live with them, it will jeopardize not only her mental health but physical well-being as well.

(iv) The court analysed that a major portion of the investment in the house is qua the land super structure and is very minimal and the construction/renovation done by the petitioners was for their own use only. The court added that the action of the petitioner-son in filing a civil suit for the declaration of disputed property to the extent of 85% in his favor has no bearing in the present matter as the non-action of the petitioner in terms of Section 2(b) and 2(k) of the Act of 2007 of not taking care of their respondent-mother stands on a completely different footing than the suit filed for declaration.

(v) It was opined by the court that the petitioners are capable enough to run their family at some other place as the petitioners are running their own business, having turnover of Rs. 25 lakhs approximately and are qualified enough to earn their own living.

(vi) The court observed that the petitioners' contentions that principles of natural justice were not followed as procedural lapses were there while adjudicating the case cannot be a ground to oust the respondent from her own house. Appropriate notices were issued, the petitioners were heard, through pleader as well as in-person, wherein, they have admitted that they are having their own business, mother is living with her daughter and that the disputed property was registered and purchased in the name of respondent-mother, added the court.

Adv. Deepak Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioners while Sr. Adv. Ashok Mehta assisted by Adv. Mudit Singhvi appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Case Title: Suresh Sharma & Anr. v. Dhanwanti Sharma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 126