ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner, a 72 year-old, retired nurse in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, claims to be absolute owner of house bearing No. 26-95/4/2, (Old No.26-104/17), 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, 2007 which provide protection of life, liberty and property to a Senior Citizen, she filed an Application under Chapter-V before the District Collector -Respondent No.2 on 11-07-2024 seeking eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from her house. Since there was no action, she filed Writ Petition No. 27400 of 2024, wherein this Court by order dated 03-10-2024 directed Respondents 2 to 4 therein to take appropriate action on petitioner's representation dated 09-07-2024 as per the 2007 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 filed Contempt Case No. 2548 of 2024, wherein, on receipt of notice, Respondent No.2 hurriedly passed the order dated 20.12.2024, impugned in this Writ Petition, without application of mind. It is stated, in the said order, Respondent No.6 filed Section 498A case against petitioner and Respondent No.5 and FCOP No. 610 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights, DVC and maintenance against Respondent No.5. It is stated, in the said order, Respondent No.6 filed Section 498A case against petitioner and Respondent No.5 and FCOP No. 610 of 2021 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 provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules, 2011. 1.3. According to petitioner, Respondent No.2 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 tenable but bad in law and violation of her right to live in her own house with dignity under Article 21 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 4 th respondent - District Welfare Officer filed counter stating that petitioner filed representation on 09-07-2024 under Chapter V for eviction of her son and daughter-in-law. The Appellate Tribunal & District Collector received the said Application on 11-07-2024. It is stated, pursuant to the directions issued in Writ Petition No 27400 of 2024, the Appellate Tribunal & District Collector issued Show Cause notice on 19-11-2024 to Respondents 5 and 6. In response thereto, Respondent No. 5 submitted explanation on 24-11-2024 stating that his wife filed Maintenance case and also Criminal case vide CC No. 3384 of 2022 before the District Court at LB Nagar. Respondent No. 6 submitted explanation on 30-11-2024 stating that petitioner and Respondent No.5 started harassing her for additional dowry which resulted in complaint before WPS Saroornagar under FCOP No.610 of 2021 on 19-03-2021 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.5 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. 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 2007 Act and Rules-2011 and advised to seek remedy in competent Court of law. 3. Respondent No.5 filed counter stating that subject house was purchased by his mother from her savings as she was working as staff nurse in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad; it is her absolute property; 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 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 while living with Respondent No.5 under the same roof, filed Maintenance Case, FCOP for restitution 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.5 and co-sister, Respondent No.6 filed maintenance case, dowry harassment case and FCOP, etcetera. In retaliation, petitioner invoked the Senior Citizens 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. In retaliation, petitioner invoked the Senior Citizens 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. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner , [AIR Online 2020 SC 897] , Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha , [AIR 2020(NOC) 512] of Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul v State of NCT of Delhi , 2019(2) AD (Delhi) 556 and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice (Retired) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh , 2014(2) LAR 133