The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to case No.681lEl2O24 on the file of respondent No.2 and after perusing the same, quash it as arbitrary, illegal and violation of provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules 2011. !, t: lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to remand my claim to respondent No.2 for effective adjudication as per law by duly setting aside the order dated 20-12-2024 in case No. 681 lEl2024 passed by the respondent No.2. pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to advance the date of hearing of the writ petition No. 3681012024 from 09-04-2025 to any other earlier date in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend/add in the writ prayer after the Rules, 2011 and consequently direct respondent No.2 to evict the respondbnts No.5 and 6 from the house of the petitioner forthwith" in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. E.R.SAVITHRI FOR SRI C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M.YADAGIRI, AGP FOR WOMEN DEV & Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SMT. AISHWARYA SUNIL FOR CHILD WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI T.PRADEEP FOR SRI M.PRASAD SMT. G.MALATHI The Court made the following: ORDER .ffi HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 36810 0F 20/24 ORDER: Petitioner, a 72 year-old, retired nurse in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, claims to be absolute owner of house bearing No. 26-95/412, (Old No.26-lO4/L7ll, Plot No. 17, Malkajgiri Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 22-10-1984, purchased out of her hard-earned money. It is stated, for all these years, Respondents 5 and 6, her son and daughter-in-law have been residing in the said house and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and now her life is in danger, if they live in her house. Respondent No. 6 filed Section 498A case against petitioner and respondent No.5 (CC No.2658 of 2022 before V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, LB Nagar) and continued. to stay in the same house.

1.1. The grievance of petitioner is that she has been spending sleepless nights and is apprehending danger in the hands of Respondents 5 and 6. She claims that as per Sections 22 and, 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 which provide protection of life, liberty and propert5r to a Senior Citize:n,she filed an Application under I 2 chapter-v before the District collector -Respondent No.2 on LL-o7'2024 seeking eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from her house. Since there was no action, she filed writ Petition No. 2740 o of 2024, wherein this court by order dated o3-lo-2o24 directed Respondents 2 to 4 therein to take appropriate action on petitioner's representation dated o9-o7-2o24 as per the 2oor Act by conducting summary enquiry and by issuing appropriate directions to all the concerned in the interest of petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by giving notice to all the concerned as per the provisions of the said Act. 1.2- since Respondent No.2 did not take any action within the stipulated time, petitioner claims to have sent a notice to Respondent No.2 and liled contempt case No. 254g of 2024, wherein, on receipt of notice, Respondent No.2 hurriedly passed the order dated 2o.r2.2o24, impugned in this writ Petition, without application of mind. It is stated, in the said order, Respondent No.6 filed section 4ggL case against petitioner and Respondent No.S and FCop No. 61o of 2o2l for restitution of conjugal rights, DVC and maintenance against Respondent No.5. on this ground alone, Respondent No.2 declared that her claim is not covered under the definition of the 3 ,(\ provisions of Maintenance and welfare of Parents and senior Citizens Act,2007 and Rules, 2011.

1.3. According to petitioner, Respondent No.o failed to appreciate that Respondent No.6, having filed all the above cases cannot choose to live in her house. The grounds cited in the impugned order are not only tenabte but bad in law and violation of her right to live in her own house with dignity under Article 2l of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstance, petitioner seeks to remand her claim to Respondent No.2 for effective adjudication as per law, duly setting aside the order dated 20-12-2024.

2. The 4ut respondent - District Welfare Officer liled counter stating that petitioner filed representation on O9-O7-2O24 under Chapter V for eviction of her son and daughter-in-law. The Appellate Tribunal & District Collector received the said Application on ll-O7-2O24. It is stated, pursuant to the directions issued in Writ Petition No 274OO of 2024, the Appellate Tribunal & District Collector issued Show Cause notice on L9-L|-2O24 to Respondents 5 and 6. In response thereto, Respondent No. 5 submitted explanation on 24-LL-2O24 stating that his wife filed Maintenance case and also Criminal case uide CC No. 3384 of 202;2 before the District Court at LB Nagar. Respondent No. 6 submitted explanation on \'=r", --....'" - d_4 4 C, 30-11-2024 stating that petitioner and Respondent No.S started harassing her for additional dowry which resulted in complaint before WPS Saroornagar under FCOP No.610 of 2O2L on lg-O3-2O2I before the Family Judge at. L.B Nagar on 06-12-2022. It is further stated, the .subject property was purchased by her father-in-law i.e. late Sanjeeva Rao in the name of petitioner and petitioner and Respondent No.S colluded with each other to neck her out from the house

2.1. During the hearing, it is stated, it is clear that there are multiple cases of dowry, DVC, Maintenance and'Divorce case between Respondents 5 and 6 (Husband & Wife) and prima facie, petitioner wants to evict only the daughter-in-law from the house. In view of the circumstances stated above, the claim of petitioner is not under the purview of the 2OO7 Act and Rules-201 1 and advised to seek remedy in competent Court of law.

3. Respondent No.S filed counter stating that subject house was purchased by his mother from her savings as she was working as staff nurse in Gandhi Hospital, Sectinderabad; it is her absolute propert5r; himself and his wife - Respondent No.6 have been residing in the same house in a separate portion. It is stated, not only his mother was harassed but he 5 was also tortured by his wife; and they have been suffering silently for all these years for the welfare of their son.

3.1. It is further stated, Respondent No. 6 white living with Respondent No.5 under the same roof, filed Maintenance Case, FCOP for restitulion of conjugal rights and criminal case under Section 498 IPC. and also O.S. No. 191 of 2024 for partition before II ASCJ, Malkajgiri. His mother filed a petition to reject the plaint on the ground that a daughter.in-law cannot seek partition against mother-in-law's self-acquired property and that petitioner's husband is alive, as such a suit for partition is not maintainable. To ensure safety to his mother, he was willing to vacate and move away along with his wife and child if this Court directs to do so.

4. Respondent No.6 filed counter stating that soon after the marriage, petitioner and her family started interfering in her personal and financial affairs, subjecting her to constant mental harassment. On 28.06.2020, Petitioner filed a false complaint before Neredmet Police Station alleging harassment; police, upon inquiry, found the complaint baseless.

4.1. It is stated, unable to bear the harassment by petitioner, Respondent No.S and co-sister, Respondent No.6 file& raaintenance case, dowry harassment case and FCOP, etcetera. In retaliation, petitioner invoked the Senior Citizens 6 n Act before the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri, seeking to evict her. After full inquiry, the Collector dismissed the petition on 20.12.2024, recognizing her lawful rights. Petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition only to overcome. that dismissal. Meanwhile, Petitioner and her co-sister also lodged false FIRs. bearing Nos. 187/2026 and 227/2026 at Neredmet Police Station with the sole intention of pressurizing her withdraw dowry harassment case. The said FIRs have now culminated into charge sheets and are pending at the summons stage on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malkajgiri, registered as C.C. Nos. 617 and 619 of 2025. It is stated, the present Writ Petition is a malicious device to frustrate Domestic Violence Case (DVC) filed by her, which is now pending at the stage of summons.

5. Heard Smt. E.R. Savithri, learned counsel representing Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Yadagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, Smt. Aishwarya Sunil, learned counsel representing Smt. G.Malathi, Iearned counsel for Respondent No.S and Sri T. Pradeep on behalf of Sri M. Prasad, learned counsel for Respond.ent No.6. 7 n

6. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in S. Vanitha a. The Deputg Commissiotterl, Vinag Varma a. Kanika pasticha2, of Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul u State of NCT of Delhia and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Justice Stlualnti Santp Deutan, Chief Justice (Retired) a. tlnion Territory, Chandigarha.

7. At the threshold, it is worth noting that Courts have repeatedly acknowledged the right of the senior citizens or parents to live peacefully and with dignity. This Act is not restricted to only providing maintenance but also aims to provide for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons. Section 22 empowers the State Governments to specify a District Magistrate to enforce the Act and Rules which include delegating duties to a subordinate officer to protect the life and I or property of senior citizens. Section 32 grants State Governments the authority to create rules to implement the Act. Section 27 bars jurisdiction of civil Courts. When petitioner made an Application to Respondent No.2 under the aforesaid t AIR Online 2020 SC 897 2 ern zozo6Noc) s12 201 AD (Delhi) 556 LAR I33 e!9 4(2) 4 8 provisions, under Chapter V, the latter is under obligation to examine the same under the said provision, but, instead, it was observed that there are multiple cases like dowry harassment, DVC, maintenance and divorce case between Respondents 5 and 6, hence, opined that the claim of petitioner is not covered under the dehnition of provisions of 2OO7 Act and petitioner and respondents were advised to seek remedy in competent Court of law.

8. Petitioner annexed the sale deed evidencing that subject property stood. in her name. Respondent No.5 who is none other than her son also supported the said version stating that petitioner purchased the property from her earnings. Respondent No.2 also in the order impugned observed that the disputed property is legally-registered in the name of petitioner and municipal tax receipts also show her as the owner. When the property is registered in the name of petitioner, Respondent No.2 is under obligation to implement the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, the contention of Respondent No.6 that propert5r was purchased by her father-in-law in the name of petitioner and now petitioner and Respondent No.S colluded with each other to neck her out from the house, does not merit consideration. 9

9. In the light of the above, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly, set aside.

10. The writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, directing Respondent No.2 to forthwith evict Respondents 5 and 6 from the subject property. No costs. 11 Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any .shalt stand closed. //TRUE COPY// iS{ilf^?TH'[ts?HIA A (Y SECTION OFFICER To Department New Delhi.

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Z. tne District tMaqistrate/District Collector, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District 3. in" Comrission6r of Police,' Ra-Chakond-a Commissionerate Neredmet, 4. ine Oisirict Weiiare Officer, WCD AND SC Department Medchal-tt/alkajgiri Collectorate Coirplex Anthaipally, Telangana - 500078.' Medchal-tVlalkajg iri District. District Anthaipally, Telangana - 500078 Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI C:M.R.VELU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. On" CC io DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE-RAL OF INDIA IOPp-CI f . iwo CCsto GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 8. friro-Cds to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 9. Tfi;-C-Cs to GP FoR WotMEN DEV & CHILD WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad- IOUT]^ 10.One CC to SM-T. G.MALATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 11.One CC to SRI M.PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 \ ORDER WP.No.36810 of 2024 o t * .tttL SIa I 2 ? JAN 2025 i Z. C) .a\ r,:'f ) I)ATtr I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \h \\