Read Time: 09 minutes
Court quashed an eviction order passed against a son from his father's house. The son had claimed that it was his sisters who wanted to sell the house, therefore, they had colluded with his mother to get him out of the same.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that earlier the aged members of the family were normally cared for by the family itself, but, in recent times, society is witnessing a gradual definite withering of the joint family system, and therefore, a large number of parents are not being maintained by their children.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed so in a writ petition filed by a son to quash an order passed by Sub. Divisional Magistrate and the Appellate Authority directing him to evict the house which allegedly belonged to his father.
The petitioner's counsel argued that even if the property in question was assumed to be the private property of the petitioner's father rather than a part of the joint property of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), the petitioner, being the son, held the right to his rightful share in the property which was also being shared by his mother and sisters along with their husbands.
The petitioner's counsel, therefore, contended that the order of eviction, passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, had been issued without due consideration of these pertinent factors.
Moreover, he informed the court that under the proceedings of Section 125 of CrPC, the petitioner was already paying Rs 4,000 to his mother and there was also income of Rs. 26,500 per month to private opposite parties (petitioner's mother and sisters) from a shop, which was let out by the father of the petitioner.
The petitioner claimed that since he had married a Scheduled Caste woman, therefore, his family members were harassing him and his wife.
However, the plea was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner's mother and sisters. He submitted that the petitioner and his wife used to beat his parents due to which multiple FIRs had also been filed against him. The counsel claimed that since, the parents of the petitioner were of old age and he was also not properly maintaining them, therefore, an application under section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007 had been moved by the parents and an order of eviction had been passed in the appeal in the application.
"It is an established fact that the family is the most desired environment for senior citizens/parents to lead a life of security, care and dignity and keeping in view of this fact and to ensure that the children should perform their moral obligation towards their parents, the Act, 2007 aims to create an enabling mechanism for the older persons ‘To Claim Need Based Maintenance From Their Children’, observed the high court.
However, the court noted that in the present matter, the sister of the petitioner was colluded with the mother and she was trying to sell out the house of petitioner's father as it was a valuable property.
Moreover, regarding the eviction order, the high court held that a Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the children and relatives to make available a residence to such senior citizens in pursuance of an application, filed under the abovesaid chapter.
It further emerges that the District Magistrate as an appellate authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his ‘need’ and the right to eviction is the last step, where such authority finds that the need of a senior citizen is not being fulfilled, added the court.
Therefore, while noting that in the present matter, the petitioner was living in one room with his wife and he was not making any hindrance in the peaceful living of his parents in other part of the house, court held that therefore, so far as the objective of the Act, 2007 was concerned, it was in no way hampered by the petitioner.
Accordingly, court quashed the eviction order passed by the appellate authority.
However, court granted the liberty to the petitioner's mother to move an appropriate application, if any sort of hindrance is been made, in furtherance to the need of her residence.
The petitioner is also directed, not to make any inconvenience in the needful living of his mother in the house in question, further ordered the court.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar v. State of UP and Others
Please Login or Register
