SHAIL DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 139 dtd. 6/10/2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi-respondent no. 3 in MAWOPASC Case No. 03 of 2020, whereby the petitioner, her husband and son have been directed to vacate House No. A-2/129, HEC Colony, Dhurwa, Ranchi and to handover the same to the respondent no. 4. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 11/12/2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-respondent no. 2 in MAWOPASC Appeal No. 26 of 2020-21, whereby the said respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order dtd. 6/10/2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of the respondent no. 4 and wife of respondent no. 5 and she is residing with her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law in quarter no. A-2/129, H.E.C. Colony, Dhurwa, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as the said house). The respondent no. 4 filed an application under Sec. 2(b)(k), 22(2), 23 and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short Act, 2007) for eviction of the petitioner, her husband and son, which was registered as MAWOPASC Case No. 03 of 2020. In the said case, notice as contained in memo no. 71 dtd. 4/6/2020 was issued to the petitioner, her husband and son, whereafter reply was filed by her husband (respondent no. 5) on 26/6/2020. However, the respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dtd. 6/10/2020 directed to vacate the said house within 15 days of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and her husband (respondent no. 5) filed an appeal under Sec. 16 of the Act, 2007 before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Ranchi, which was registered as MAWOPASC Appeal No. 26/R-15 of 2020. During pendency of the said appeal, the respondent no. 4 moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3554 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 18/11/2021, giving liberty to the respondent no. 4 to file a fresh application for execution of the order dtd. 6/10/2020 before the respondent no. 3 and on filing of such application, the respondent no. 3 was directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for implementing the order dtd. 6/10/2020. Finally, the respondent no. 2 vide order dtd. 11/12/2021 dismissed the said appeal upholding the order dtd. 6/10/2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 2007 should have appropriately moulded the reliefs after noticing the competing claims of the parties under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act, 2005') and the Act, 2007 since Sec. 3 of the Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to nullify other protections in law particularly a woman's right over a shared household under Sec. 17 of the Act, 2005. The petitioner being the daughter-in-law of the respondent no. 4 is residing in the said house and as such she is entitled for protection under Sec. 17 of the Act, 2005. The petitioner is also a senior citizen and thus she is entitled for protection under the Act, 2007 as well. The petitioner and her husband have no alternative house to live in, whereas the respondent no. 4 has more than eight houses and he is the owner of several vehicles, quarters, school etc. as well as he is also in occupation of the houses registered in the name of three brothers of the respondent no. 5.