SAKSHI JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remaining defect as pointed out by the office is ignored. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 27/8/2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 ... the Sub-Divisional Officer, Medininagar (Daltonganj), Palamau, whereby an order for eviction of the petitioner and her husband i.e., respondent no. 7 from the house of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, situated at Shiva Jee Maidan Road, Daltonganj, District - Palamau (hereinafter referred to as "the said house"), has been passed with a direction to the officer-in-charge, P.S.-Sadar, Medininagar to evict them from the said house, if they refuse to vacate the same within 30 days from the said order.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was married to the respondent no. 7 on 1/5/2015 who is son of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and out of the said wedlock, one male child was born on 12/11/2016. The petitioner along with her minor son is residing in her matrimonial home as a lawfully wedded spouse of the respondent no. 7. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 have executed a deed of disownment dtd. 13/7/2020 and published it in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" (Jharkhand Edition) on 16/7/2020 stating that they have disowned and disinherited their son and daughter-in-law from their property. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Daltonganj, Palamau on 25/7/2020 for providing them protection alleging that the petitioner and her husband used to torture them mentally and physically. They also filed a complaint on the same day i.e., 25/7/2020 before the respondent no. 1, however, the same was kept pending. Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3581 of 2020 was filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pass an order for evicting the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 from their house situated at Shiva Jee Maidan Road, Daltonganj, Palamau exercising of power conferred under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2007") read with Jharkhand State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2014"). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 13/1/2021 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take an appropriate decision on the application/complaint of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. Thereafter, the complaint petition filed by them was decided vide impugned order dtd. 27/8/2021 directing the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 to vacate the said house within 30 days from passing of the order, failing which the officer-in-charge, P.S.-Sadar, Medininagar was to evict them and to hand over the said house to the parents (the respondent nos. 5 and 6).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 did not have any evidence of torture inflicted by the petitioner upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The respondent no. 2 has not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec. 6(6) of the Act, 2007 and rule 10 of the Rules, 2014 which provide that before hearing an application under Sec. 5, Maintenance Tribunal may refer the same to a conciliation officer who shall submit his findings within one month and if amicable settlement has been arrived at, the Tribunal shall pass an order to that effect. It is further submitted that the complaint under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, 2007 was filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with the respondent no. 7 just to oust the petitioner from her matrimonial house. The petitioner has no other place except the said house to live with her minor son and as such she cannot be evicted from the said house in view of her right to reside in a shared household as provided by Sec. 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent nos. 5 to 7 used to torture the petitioner mentally and physically for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The petitioner filed Original Maintenance Case No. 111 of 2020 under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C against her husband and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau vide order dtd. 3/4/2021 allowed the said case directing the respondent no. 7 to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.7000.00 per month to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed an informatory petition under Sec. 39 of the Cr.P.C being Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 63 of 2021 against the respondent nos. 5 to 7 stating that respondent no. 6 tried to outrage her modesty and they had intention to oust her from matrimonial house. The petitioner has also filed Complaint Case no. 600 of 2021 under Ss. 323/ 379/ 498A/ 504/ 506/ 354/ 354A/ 354B/34 of IPC against the respondent nos. 5 to 7 and the C.J.M, Palamau vide order dtd. 25/3/2021 has directed to register an FIR under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to hold a proper investigation.