Vinod Sharma Vs Smt Shanti Devi And Ors: Does Senior Citizen Act Contemplate The Eviction Of Children

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR, DINESH MEHTA

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: MR. VINDO SHARMA
RESPONDENT: MS. SHANTI DEVI & ORS.

SUBJECT

The Rajasthan High Court noted out that the Maintenance and Protection of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act, 2007) doesn't really allow a District Magistrate, let alone a Tribunal, to issue an eviction notice.

OVERVIEW

1. The defendants 1 and 2 submitted a plea under Section 5(A)(B) of the Act of 2007 along with 4(1)(3) of the Rules of 2010, with, trying to bring to the Court's attention that they had been facing money troubles as elderly people of 75 and 82 years of age, respectively, because their three sons (applicant and defendants 3 and 4 herein) were either caring for nor sustaining them.
2. It was asked for each of the sons to be ordered to make a monthly upkeep payment of Rs.10,000/-. Not only was maintenance demanded in the case, but also an injunction of removal of all three sons (the applicant; respondent Nos. 3 and 4) so that they may settle in their residential house located at Plot No.2, Artisan Colony, Masooriya, Jodhpur (subsequently referred to as 'the subject house').
3. The current applicant submitted a response to the petition, alleging that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the appeal with the intent of harassing the plaintiff, albeit getting adequate resources to achieve their goals.
4. Several other assertions were also stated, none of which are very relevant to the problem at hand. The court concluded that the subject’s plea was ordered dated 05.01.2022 and directed the petitioner and the defendant 3 and 4 as well to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to their parents.
5. All the three sons were also ordered to give away the possession of the subject’s house to their parents, with a parallel direction to the Station House Officer, P.S. Dev Nagar to decide the compliance and submit the final report.

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 4 and Section 5 of the Maintenance and Protection of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act, 2007),

ISSUES

1. Whether the senior citizen act contemplates eviction of children?
2. Whether court can order only maintenance?

JUDGEMENT

1. The court stated that the Act of 2007 was enacted to protect the well being and welfare of elderly people by establishing regulations for the establishment of old-age homes and attempting to make the State Government, as well as District Magistrates and officers subordinate to them, fully accountable for the protection of elderly people' lives and livelihoods.
2. In addition, the court stated that sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 2007 were intended to guarantee that older people or families were supplied with adequate means to survive in decency.
3. The court noted that the Tribunal created under the Act of 2007 can order the offspring’s or those obligated to support their parents to pay a payment not beyond Rs.10,000/- per month to the parents.
4. Following a closer examination of sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the court discovered that the Tribunal established under the Act could only issue a support order on behalf of elderly people or parents.
5. The court noted that there was no active or passive connection to removal, and that these rules did not foresee any such order being issued by the Tribunal. The court responded that the expulsion order could not be issued while relying on sub-rules (2) and (5) of Rule 20 of the Rules, 2010.
6. Rule 20(2)(i) stated that it was the District Magistrate's responsibility to maintain that the lives and possessions of the district's senior people were safeguarded, and that they were allowed to live in protection and assistance.
7. Likewise, sub-rule (5) stated that if an elderly person’s life or possessions was in jeopardy, it was the obligation of the District Magistrate or a fully authorised officer subject to him to defend that elderly person’s life and property.
8. The court pointed out that the responsibility imposed by sub-rule (2) was limited to ensuring the safety of elderly persons' lives and property. The same cannot be expanded to the extent where it converts into the ability to "scoop out the youngsters" who've been residing in communal housing due to natural connection that occurred at one point in time, according to the court.
9. The court went on to say that the Tribunal lacks the competence to issue such an eviction notice because Rule 20 uses the term "District Magistrate" specifically.
10. The Tribunal has so hijacked the supposed rights under Rule 20, that were otherwise not intended for or accessible to it, according to the court. According to the court, the eviction notice is essentially unlawful and without jurisdiction.
11. Furthermore, the court stated that the issue was incredibly dire, with society's moral codes, along with those of kids, rapidly declining by the day.
12. However, courts were entitled to determine cases, or the rights and duties of complainants based on laws and constitutional moral standards, not solely on general populace or famous ethics.
13. The court emphasised that societal expectations and duties cannot be imposed or decreed by the courts unless the law clearly provides for them.

CONCLUSION

Fresh possibilities demeaned by patches or holes in the legislation could be plugged in to provide genuine meaning to the terms of a legislation, according to the court. However, a blank or gap allegedly left by the makers of law, knowingly or unknowingly, cannot be boosted or filled by quasi-judicial bodies or Tribunals, which are intended to apply legislation as it appears or exists, according to the court.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement