Daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married: Bombay High Court
While taking cognizance of the misery faced by parents, the Bombay High Court asked a son to vacate the flat of his 90 year old parents through Justice G.S. Kulkarni in the case of Ashish Vinod Dalal v. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal (WRIT PETITION NO.2400 OF 2021)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In lengthy judicial proceedings, petitioner 1 involved his parents, respondents 1 and 2, who are 90 and 89 years old, together with his wife, petitioner 2, and their daughter, petitioner 3. Parents had to go to the tribunal at such a late stage in their life because petitioners 1 and 2 were attempting to evict them from the apartment they had allowed them to live in while harassing and abusing them for years. The father originally owned the apartment, which he later gave to his two daughters through a gift deed.
Petitioners 1 and 2 were restrained from using any form of domestic violence and were also forbidden from taking any of the mother’s possessions out of the joint household or causing any other type of disturbance. On the mother’s complaint, the aforementioned order was made.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, provisions had to be used as a last resort by the parents, and the Maintenance Tribunal had to provide them with relief under these provisions. The present petition was filed as a result of dissatisfaction with the Maintenance Tribunal’s ruling.
JUDGEMENT:
According to the statement, the property in question was not an ancestral property on which the petitioner 1 could assert any legal rights in order to continue living there with his family and forcing them upon the parents against their will.
Therefore, the Maintenance Tribunal had correctly acknowledged the parents’ rights to the property.
As it came to a conclusion, the court stated that the current case was about two desperate parents who wanted to find peace at such an advanced age. The petitioners need to consider if such fundamental needs and aspirations should similarly be denied to them by a wealthy son.
Bench added to the aforementioned by saying that the son appeared to be blinded in fulfilling his duties to care for his elderly and needy parents and instead led them into litigation. The petition was denied while ordering the petitioners to leave the contested apartment with his family members.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY