ANILA Vs. MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order issued by the 1st respondent as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short, "Senior Citizens Act, 2007").

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The 2nd respondent is the mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner, and the petitioner before the 1st respondent Maintenance Tribunal, and other petitioners are parents and relatives of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 1st respondent Tribunal requesting to permit her to reside on the first floor of the building in which the petitioners are residing on the ground floor. Ext.P1 complaint was resisted by the petitioners herein by filing Exts.P2 and P3 objections mainly contending that the 1st petitioner has approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad filing M.C.No.28 of 2021 (Ext.P4) invoking Sec. 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, "Domestic Violence Act, 2005"), alleging domestic violence and C.M.P.No.549 of 2021 (Ext.P5) was filed seeking protection orders. Ext.P6 interim order dtd. 5/3/2021 was issued whereby respondents 2 to 6 were restrained from causing any kind of nuisance or hindrance to the petitioners' peaceful living in the shared house bearing No.9/28 (old survey No.28/13). In Ext.P6 interim order further directions were also issued. Petitioners would submit that complaints were also filed before the police as Exts.P8 and P9, alleging harassment and ill-treatment by the 2nd respondent and others. Without considering any of these aspects, by Ext.P10 order, the 1st respondent Tribunal invoking the powers under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, permitted the 2nd respondent to reside in the said building where the petitioners are residing, and the petitioners were directed not to cause any mental or physical torture towards the 2nd respondent. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) It is contended that as the 1st petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the 2nd respondent, no complaint is maintainable against her as per the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is also submitted based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, 2021 (1) KLT 80 that the right of the 1st petitioner to secure a residence or in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as directed in the present case. It is further submitted that if the 2nd respondent is allowed to stay in the house where the petitioners are residing on the strength of Ext.P6 order issued under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, there is every chance of threatening and harassing the petitioner. It is on the said grounds, the present writ petition has been filed.