DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WILL VACATE THE HOUSE OF THE ELDERLY PARENTS, SUPREME COURT ORDERED, NOT INTERFERING
- MG TOW
- Feb 11, 2022
- 3 min read
The law brought in to provide maintenance and protection to elderly parents and senior citizens is a lesson. An elder had demanded to be thrown out of his house, accusing the daughter-in-law of harassing and harassing the daughter-in-law living together under this law.
Mala Dixit, New Delhi. The law brought to provide maintenance and protection to elderly parents and senior citizens is going to teach a lesson to the family members who misbehave with the elderly. An example of this is this case. In which an elder had demanded to be thrown out of his house, accusing the daughter-in-law of harassing and harassing the daughter-in-law living together under this law. Taking cognizance of the application, the SDM ordered the daughter-in-law to vacate the house, against which the daughter-in-law first went to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court, but both the courts ordered the daughter-in-law to vacate the house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Order given, not cancelled.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the daughter-in-law was given the option of living in a different flat on behalf of the father-in-law. Which the court considered a better proposal. The Supreme Court has ordered the daughter-in-law that she will stay with her daughter in that separate flat and will not interfere in the life of mother-in-law. shall also not create any legal right of third party in that flat. After this decision, the daughter-in-law will have to vacate the father-in-law's house. This order was pronounced by a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S Oka on January 24, while disposing of the petition filed by the daughter-in-law against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court.
In this case of Haridwar, Uttarakhand, retired CP Sharma had filed an application before the SDM under the Parents and Senior Citizens Maintenance and Welfare Act, accusing the daughter-in-law of torturing and harassing her and urged her to get out. Accepting the application, the SDM ordered the daughter-in-law to vacate the house in 30 days. Whereas the daughter-in-law filed a petition in the High Court and demanded that the order be quashed. The daughter-in-law said that the order has been given without hearing her side. The SDM does not have the right to give such an order. The daughter-in-law had accused the mother-in-law of torturing her, citing the ongoing marital dispute with her husband.
He said that she was the daughter-in-law. He has a legal and right to live in this house. The High Court dismissed the daughter-in-law's petition. Referring to the purpose of the law to provide protection to parents and senior citizens, the High Court said that it has been asked to implement a proper mechanism for protection. Section 23 of this Act empowers the Tribunal to make orders regarding the property of a senior citizen.
The High Court also said that the daughter-in-law also comes in the family. After that she came to the Supreme Court. While upholding the order of the SDM, the Supreme Court had questioned the father-in-law's lawyer DK Garg about the eight-year-old daughter of the daughter-in-law. The court had asked where would this eight-year-old girl go, on which the daughter-in-law and granddaughter were given the option of living in another flat on the next hearing from the father-in-law. Which the court considered the better option.
The proposal was also accepted on behalf of the daughter-in-law, but the girl's school was far away from there and said that she would spend more, on which the court said that she should ask her husband for the additional cost of commuting to school. In this case, the matter of maintenance of daughter-in-law from husband is under consideration in the court. Husband works in Noida and lives there. The daughter-in-law lives in Haridwar with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law with her daughter.
READ MORE :
Comments