SURESH SHARMA Vs. DHANWANTI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 8/3/2019 passed by the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal (S.D.O.) Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby, petitioners were directed to vacate the premises and the rights of respondent mother were restored.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent is mother of petitioner No.l and mother-in-law of petitioner No.2, whose husband was Army Colonel, who passed away in the year 2003 bequeathing all movable and immovable properties in favour of the respondent by way of will prior to his death. The respondent has three sons and one daughter. In the year 2004, the respondent purchased a house bearing No. 264, Army Welfare Housing Organisation Colony, Ambabari, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as VWVHO Colony' which is registered in her name. The said property, referred to as 'disputed property', has two floors consisting of two bedrooms, one dinning room-cum-drawing room, one kitchen and two washrooms on both ground floor and first floor.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that in the year 2006, after demise of his father, he married petitioner No.2 against the wish of the respondent, as a result of which, he was directed to leave the disputed property of the respondent. It was only in the year 2010, on insistence of the relatives, that the petitioners were allowed to move back in the disputed property under the belief that they will take care of their ailing, old, senior citizen mother, whose elder son had died, whose family is living separately, and younger son is not well to do. He submits that the allegations of ill-treatment qua abusive language, neglect, mental and physical torture against him and his wife are only cooked story. The fact of not providing food, not taking appropriate care of relatives or visitors of the respondent and not providing medical facilities to the respondent are also part of the sham story. The petitioners further submit that it is on her own sweet will that the respondent went to Bhiwani, her native town, to her sister-in-law in the year 2010 and thereafter since March,2018 until today she is residing at her daughter's house and the petitioners had no role to play in forcing her out of the disputed property for the said period. The petitioners have submitted that though in the year 2004, the disputed property was purchased by the respondent and was registered in her name but in the year 2010, the petitioner has invested approximately Rs.8.00 lacs out of his own funds. It is further averred that the petitioner had filed a suit before the Civil Court for declaration of said property to the extent of 85% in his name. In the said litigation, the Civil Court rejected the plaint upon Order 7 Rule 11 application by order dtd. 6/8/2021 against which an appeal was preferred which is sub judice before this Court bearing Civil First Appeal No. 305/2021. He has requested for maintaining status quo and continuation of interim order in the facts and circumstances of the matter. The petitioners have also reiterated the contents of writ petition in support of their claim.