RAKESH KUMAR SOOD Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Rakesh Kumar Sood has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure P- 9) passed by the District Magistrate-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in a proceedings initiated under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

(2.) Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Atwal, appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner who is aged 68 years along with his wife are owner of house No.B- 534/19 situated at Government College Road, Ludhiana. The marriage of their only son namely Amit Sood with respondent No.2-Seema was performed on 26.01.2015 and on 09.11.2015, one girl child was born out of the wedlock. According to the averments made in the writ petition, husband and wife were having a discord and every day bickering resulted into disinheritance of the son and daughter-in-law on 22.01.2016. After that the behaviour of respondent No.2 became more violent. On 27.01.2016, 11.02.2016, 22.02.2016 to 26.02.2016, respondent No.2 with the help of respondent Nos.3 to 9 and their henchmen committed series of acts so as to cause mental and physical harassment to petitioner and his wife. The matter was also reported to the police on 17.02.2016 vide Annexure P-11. Though there are other representations. The respondent No.2-daughter-in-law had also submitted complaint to the police for alleged dowry harassment. The matter was enquired out by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime against Women and Children Cell, Ludhiana, whereby in its report dated 23.05.2016, it noticed the factum of filing of the complaint under 2007 Act and further found that there was no truth in the allegation of dowry or physical/mental harassment as no medical record of the alleged cruelty or injury was presented and resultantly made recommendation for cancellation particularly when dispute, between the parties, before Deputy Commissioner, was already pending. I deem it appropriate to extract the aforementioned, conclusion report, which reads thus:-

(3.) The aforementioned report has not been rebutted in the written statement. It is also not been brought to the notice of this Court whether any private complaint under Sec. 406/498-A has been filed or not. On the contrary, it has been submitted by Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate that husband and the wife, vide rent note dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) had taken accommodation on rent and the factum of the same is being proved as it bears the signatures of Seema Sood. The factum of taking of the possession on rented accommodation has also been verified by the District Magistrate in proceedings held under the aforementioned Act by recording the statement of landlord Mukesh Bagga through Naib Tehsildar. Report in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-10, which reads thus:-