RANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition assails the order dtd. 19/6/2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Ambala, whereby the complaint preferred by respondent No.4 under Sec. 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") was allowed, directing the petitioner to vacate the house in question within thirty days.

(2.) Concisely and compendiously, respondent No.4, who is a senior citizen and the father-in-law of the petitioner, had initially instituted an application under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Naraingarh, alleging facts substantially alike to those raised in the complaint (supra). Vide order dtd. 23/11/2015, the Maintenance Tribunal directed the petitioner to provide food to respondent No.4 three times a day for six months in a year, and for the remaining six months, Gurmeet Singh (son of respondent No.4) was made responsible for the same. Both the petitioner and Gurmeet Singh were further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 each per month towards the maintenance of respondent No.4, with a stipulation that non-compliance of these directions would entail their eviction from the house in question. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 23/11/2015, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Sec. 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal, Ambala, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 28/3/2017. The efforts of the petitioner to get these orders set aside did not pause here, as she impugned those orders before this Court by filing CWP-14659-2017. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dtd. 11/10/2017, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. It was, however, observed that if respondent No.4 was not inclined to reside with the petitioner in the house allegedly owned by him, he would be at liberty to file an application under Sec. 22(2) of the Act of 2007 within one month. Pursuant to the said liberty, respondent No.4 filed a complaint under Sec. 22(2) before the District Magistrate, Ambala, which culminated in the passing of the impugned eviction order dtd. 19/6/2018, which is now under challenge in the present proceedings.