Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1108 (ALL)

Randhir Singh v. District Magistrate Faizabad

2019-04-29

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, whereby representation dated 1.6.2017 preferred by the petitioner for protection of his life and property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2007”) has been rejected on the wrong premises. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under : The petitioner is an Ex-Navy person and is a Senior Citizen aged about 68 years. During his service period, the petitioner had purchased a land, bearing Gata No. 544, situated at Village & Post-Jaisingh Mau, Police Station Tarun, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad for construction of his house through registered sale deed from S/Shri Shiv Prasad Singh and Mata Badal Singh, both sons of Shri Bhagauti Singh. After his retirement, the petitioner came to his native place and he constructed a house over the said land and started living in it along with his entire family. 4. According to the petitioner, he is having two sons, namely, Amrendra Kumar Singh and Samrendra Kumar Singh. The elder son Amrendra Kumar Singh is serving in Merchant Navy, whereas younger son Samrendra Kumar Singh is in Indian Navy. In the year 2011, the petitioner solemnized the marriage of his younger son Samrendra Kumar Singh with one Preeti Singh (respondent No.3 herein). After marriage, respondent No.3 came to the house of the petitioner and started living there. Just after six months of the marriage, the respondent No.3 (daughter-in-law of the petitioner) started polluting the atmosphere of the house and used to quarrel with her husband as well as in-laws. In the meantime, she also got conceived and gave birth to a female child. Even after being blessed with a child, her attitude did not change and she kept on quarreling with her husband and in-laws on petty matters. 5. It has been stated in the writ petition that for a change and save the nuptial knot, the husband of respondent No.3 took his wife i.e. respondent No.3 to Mumbai, where he was posted. Even after being blessed with a child, her attitude did not change and she kept on quarreling with her husband and in-laws on petty matters. 5. It has been stated in the writ petition that for a change and save the nuptial knot, the husband of respondent No.3 took his wife i.e. respondent No.3 to Mumbai, where he was posted. She stayed at Mumbai for about three months but again she started her feminine wiles and indulged in disturbing the peace and extended threats to her husband and in-laws for facing dire consequences. When all the efforts of the husband of the respondent No.3 and in-laws went in vain, a suit for divorce was filed by the younger son of the petitioner, bearing Suit No. 436 of 2015, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. According to the petitioner, on receipt of notice in the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.3 appeared and gave application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to which the Court below has passed an order dated 2.8.2016, whereby the application of the respondent No.3 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the Court below has passed an order, awarding interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month and Rs.6000/- as one time litigation expenses. 7. It has been stated in the writ petition that in pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 2.8.2016, the younger son of the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.6000/- on the same day and started giving monthly maintenance i.e. Rs.5000/- to the respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, inspite of the pendency of the aforesaid suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on one hand, the respondent No.3 forcibly entered in the house of the petitioner and started living with her parents i.e. father and mother, even though the petitioner has disowned his son and respondent No.3 from his movable and immovable property. However, the respondent No.3 has ousted the petitioner and other in-laws from the self acquired property of the petitioner and at present, the petitioner is living in a rented house at District Faizabad. 8. It has further been stated in the writ petition that respondent No.3 has illegally and falsely lodged three FIRs against the petitioner and in-laws on 25.1.2016, 10.2.2016 and on 19.2.2016, respectively. 8. It has further been stated in the writ petition that respondent No.3 has illegally and falsely lodged three FIRs against the petitioner and in-laws on 25.1.2016, 10.2.2016 and on 19.2.2016, respectively. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the attitude and act of the respondent No.3, preferred application dated 20.10.2016 before the District Magistrate, Faizabad, who directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur to look into the matter and do the needful but as no heed was paid, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 27546 (M/B) of 2016, praying therein to direct the respondents, particularly respondent No.1 to protect the life and property of the petitioner in pursuance of the Act, 2007 enacted by the Government of India on 29.12.2007. This Court, vide order dated 22.5.2017, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. 9. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.5.2017 was served upon the respondent No.1-District Magistrate, Faizabad, who, in turn, issued notice to respondent No.3. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.3 appeared before the District Magistrate, Faizabad and filed her written argument on 5.6.2017. The petitioner also appeared before the District Magistrate, Faizabad and filed written argument on 5.6.2017 but without considering the written argument filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1, in a very illegal and arbitrary manner, passed the impugned order dated 8.6.2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by giving finding that in the records, there is no evidence which reveals that his daughter-in-law restrains him from living in the house. 10. It has been averred that the petitioner has filed a suit for vacation of his premises in question against the respondent No.3 but the respondent No.3 did not appear and ultimately, the said suit was decided ex parte on 31.5.2017. Even then the respondent No.3, instead of vacating the premises in question, moved recall application against the order dated 31.5.2017, which is still pending. In these backgrounds, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 11. Even then the respondent No.3, instead of vacating the premises in question, moved recall application against the order dated 31.5.2017, which is still pending. In these backgrounds, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 11. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in Chapter V of the Act, 2007, it has specifically been provided that the protection of life and property of senior citizen is to be protected by the Government and the State Government may confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. His submission is that the petitioner personally met with the District Magistrate to save his life and protect his property, which he has made from his self earned money after his retirement. 12. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the finding given by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order is absolutely illegal and arbitrary for the reason that the petitioner is unable to live in his self-acquired house due to harassment by his daughter-in-law as she still threatens the petitioner for implicating him in false cases. 13. To strengthen his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Sunny Paul and another vs State of NCT of Delhi and others [W.P. (C) 10463/2015 & CM Appl. 43227 of 2016), decided on 15.3.2017. 14. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has denied the allegations of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner and his son has committed cruelty against her for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. 43227 of 2016), decided on 15.3.2017. 14. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has denied the allegations of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner and his son has committed cruelty against her for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 22 Chapter V of the 2007 Act before the District Magistrate, Faizabad, wherein in paras 6 and 7 as well as para 7 of the written arguments, it has been stated that being saddened by the strained relations between the son, namely, Samrendra Kumar Singh and the respondent No.3, the petitioner disowned his son and respondent No.3 but from perusal of the order-sheet of suit filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 it will come out that the petitioner has received the copy of the plaint/applications on behalf of his son and is doing pairvi on behalf of his son, it is clear that all the incidents have taken place at the behest of the petitioner, who is interested to break the marriage in collusion with the husband of the respondent No.3. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that on the application moved by the petitioner, the District Magistrate has directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur to inquire into the matter and submit report. On due enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has submitted enquiry report to the District Magistrate, wherein it has been stated that in the said house, seven rooms and two verandah are situated, out of which five rooms are locked by the petitioner and only two rooms are opened where the respondent No.3 is living with her daughter and no illegal possession was found. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the District Magistrate, after considering the facts and circumstances, has passed the order in accordance with law, which is perfectly justified. 16. Lastly, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for eviction before the Court below and got an ex parte order dated 31.5.2017. After getting knowledge of the said ex parte order, the respondent No.3 filed an application for recall of the ex parte order dated 31.5.2017. After considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, the Court below passed an order dated 6.10.2017, allowing the recall application. 17. After getting knowledge of the said ex parte order, the respondent No.3 filed an application for recall of the ex parte order dated 31.5.2017. After considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, the Court below passed an order dated 6.10.2017, allowing the recall application. 17. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 18. It appears that on 20.10.2016, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 22 of the 2007 Act before the District Magistrate, Faizabad but as no action was taken, the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 27546 of 2016 (M/B), which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2017 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Faizabad to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20.10.2016. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 22.5.2017, the petitioner filed an application dated 1.6.2017 annexing the copy of the judgment and order dated 22.5.2017 before the District Magistrate, Faizabad, whereupon application preferred by the petitioner under Section 22 of the 2007 Act was registered as Misc. Case No. 1/83 of 2017. 19. It appears that on receipt of the application, a notice was issued to respondent No.3 and a report was sought from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur. In response thereof, the respondent No.3 had put in appearance before the District Magistrate, Faizabad and filed her written arguments. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur has also submitted his report dated 24.10.2016 and 5.6.2017 to the District Magistrate, Faizabad, stating therein that the house of the petitioner situates at Village Jaisinghmau, which consists of seven rooms and two verandahs, out of which in two rooms, petitioner’s daughter-in-law (respondent No.3) and her four years daughter are living. It has also been stated in the report that petitioner’s daughter-in-law has stated in her statement that she has no objection if her father-in-law (petitioner herein) and his family resides but both are living with their elder daughter-in-law in Faizabad on his sweet-will; a suit for divorce with her husband is pending consideration; and she is not illegally occupied with the other rooms. 20. 20. The District Magistrate, after hearing both the parties and going through the record as well as the enquiry reports dated 27.10.2016 and 5.6.2017, found that the petitioner in para-7 himself has stated that his son Samrendra Kumar Singh has filed a suit for divorce against his wish, due to which he has disowned his son from his movable and immovable property. As per report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner has locked five rooms himself, and only in two rooms, his daughter-in-law and her four years daughter is living. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that if the petitioner wants, he can live in his house but he himself is living with his elder daughter-in-law out of his own free will. Though a suit for divorce is pending consideration but even then, it is also true that at present, respondent No.3 is the petitioner’s daughter-in-law and she is residing in two rooms with her four years’ daughter. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that no question arises of petitioner’s eviction from the house. 21. While coming to the aforesaid finding, the District Magistrate has also recorded a finding that there is no evidence to the effect that the respondent No.3 has restrained the petitioner from living in five rooms of the house in question. The District Magistrate has accordingly passed the impugned order dated 8.6.2017. 22. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 8.6.2017, the stand of the petitioner is that he has thrown out his son Samrendra Kumar Singh from his movable and immovable property, therefore, neither his son Samrendra Kumar Singh nor his wife (respondent No.3) nor his four years old daughter has any right over the house in question, which is not the ancestral property but the self-acquired property of the petitioner. Therefore, the District Magistrate has erroneously passed the impugned order. 23. On the contrary, the stand of the respondent No.3 is that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner’s son Samrendra Kumar Singh, and from the wedlock, a daughter was borne and now she is aged about nine years. A matrimonial suit between petitioner’s son and her (respondent No.3) for divorce is pending consideration. Her husband (petitioner’s son) is doing job in Indian Navy and is not residing in Faizabad. A matrimonial suit between petitioner’s son and her (respondent No.3) for divorce is pending consideration. Her husband (petitioner’s son) is doing job in Indian Navy and is not residing in Faizabad. She has also stated that she has no objection if her father-in-law (petitioner in herein) and in-laws reside in the house wherein five rooms and two verandahs are lying vacant and locked. She is living in two rooms of the said house along with her minor daughter. The District Magistrate, after considering all the facts and circumstances as well as taking into consideration the enquiry report, has rightly passed the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, which is perfectly justified and legally sustainable. 24. The question is whether the respondent No.3, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, has a right to reside in the house, which is self-acquired property of the petitioner against the wishes of the petitioner, in view of the provisions of the aforesaid 2017 Act read with Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2014”). 25. The 2007 Act was promulgated to provide for more effective provision for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The statement of Objects and Reasons pointed out that the traditional norms and values of the Indian Society which lays stress on providing care for elderly, is waning due to withering of the joint family system. The elders are facing emotional neglect and lack of physical and financial support. The Objects and Reasons notices that aging has become a major social challenge and despite the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance, it was deemed necessary that there should be a simple, economical and speedy provision to claim maintenance for the parents and senior citizens. The Act is not restricted to only providing maintenance but it casts also an obligation on the persons who inherit the property from their aged relatives to maintain them. One of the major aims is to provide for institutionalization of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons. 26. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2014 enjoins duty upon the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens of the districts are protected and that they are able to live life with security and dignity. 26. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2014 enjoins duty upon the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens of the districts are protected and that they are able to live life with security and dignity. The District Magistrate has also been given powers to oversee and monitor that adequate maintenance is provided to the senior citizens and also to ensure that the provisions of the Act are carried out. 27. Rule 22 of the Rules of 2014 provides that the District Superintendent of Police shall take necessary steps for protection of life and property of the senior citizens and that each police station shall maintain an up-to-date list of senior citizens and that a representative of the police station shall visit such senior citizens at regular intervals at least once a month and the complaints and problems of the senior citizens should be promptly attended to by the police station. 28. While passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate has gone through the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on finding that the petitioner inspite of having five rooms in the house, is living with his elder daughter-in-law on his own sweet will; the matrimonial dispute between petitioner’s son and respondent No.3 is pending; and the petitioner has not produced any evidence which could establish that the respondent No.3 has restrained the petitioner from living in other five rooms of the house in question. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate has recorded specific findings of fact on the basis of cogent material on record and the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case. . 29. From the perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that the District Magistrate, on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has recorded specific finding that there is no evidence on record, which establishes that the respondent No.3 is trying to restrain the petitioner from living in other five rooms of the house in question. In fact the petitioner is residing with his elder daughter-in-law on his own sweet-will at Faizabad. In fact the petitioner is residing with his elder daughter-in-law on his own sweet-will at Faizabad. In order to protect the interest of the petitioner being a senior citizen, the District Magistrate in its order has specifically directed the concerned police station to see both the parties from time to time and it is also expected from the parties that they live in congenial atmosphere without interfering in the peaceful life of each other. 30. On due consideration, we are of view that the findings recorded by the District Magistrate appears to be sound and reasonable and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 31. In view of the above, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs easy.