DR. SACHAYTA Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is against the impugned order dtd. 18/8/2022 (Annexure P-1) vide which she has been directed to vacate the premises which is her matrimonial house, which order is incorrect as, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the son of the respondent No. 2-senior citizen and the petitioner is being asked to vacate the suit premises in question as there is a matrimonial dispute persisting between the petitioner and their son i.e. respondent No. 3.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without appreciating the above mentioned fact, the impugned order dtd. 18/8/2022 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by authority exercising jurisdiction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as '2007 Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29760 of 2019) titled as Smt. S Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., decided on 15/12/2020, wherein it has been held that in a case where the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been initiated and consequently an interim order has been passed in favour of daughter-in-law, the authority concerned exercising jurisdiction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as '2007 Act') has to pave way for the convenience of the daughter-in-law and has to duly ensure that whether the motive qua the order being sought under 2007 Act is just for eviction of the daughter-in-law or for the purpose for which 2007 Act has been enacted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 18/8/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act is contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. S. Vanitha's case (supra) and liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-senior citizen submits that the respondent No. 2-senior citizen owns the premises in question and has no other house to live in and as there is a matrimonial dispute persisting between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, the life of the respondent No. 2-senior citizen is being wasted on account of their matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel further submits that once this becomes an undisputed fact that the property in question belongs to the respondent No. 2-senior citizen then it is the senior citizen who has an exclusive right to decide as to who will live in the said property hence, the impugned order which has been passed by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under 2007 Act is perfectly valid and legal and the writ petition may kindly be dismissed.