Matangi Premalatha vs State Of Telangana

Heard Mr. Gadipe Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and Mr. Bujjibabu Davuluri, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing order dated 19.10.2022 vide proceedings No.C/1153/2022 directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to vacate the petitioner from the house property bearing No.4-67, Kranthi Colony, Near Medipally Government School, Medipally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District without considering that the petitioner is widow and having two daughters and that the house belongs to respondent No.6, who is mother-in-law of the petitioner as illegal, and to set aside the said order dated 19.10.2022 and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the aforesaid property without following due procedure.

Vide the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2022, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to vacate the house bearing No.4-67, Kranthi Colony, Medipally. He has also directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to evict the petitioner from the said house without any deviation.

The petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.6. The husband of the petitioner died on 30.06.2022 and she is not in receipt of any pension. Despite forwarding the pension papers, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization did not sanction the pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even respondent No.6 is a Pensioner and she is receiving a pension of Rs.50,000/-. He would further submit that the petitioner being the daughter-in-law will not fall within the definition of ‘children’ as per Section - 2 (a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘Act, 2007’). He would further submit that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application and to pass the impugned orders. The impugned order is beyond the scope of the Act, 2007. The petitioner herein has two minor daughters and she does not have any shelter and she is also taking care of respondent No.6. All the said facts were not considered by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2022.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6, referring to the contents of counter, would contend that the petitioner has two (02) houses i.e., one consisting of ground floor with an area of 822 square feet construed on Plot No.143, admeasuring 150 square yards, situated at Peerzadiguda Village under Peerzadiguda Municipality. She also has another house bearing No.3-85, situated at Vivekananda Colony, Medipally, Narapally, Ranga Reddy District, and an open plot bearing No.818, admeasuring 240 square yards in Survey No.795, situated at Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The details of the same are specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit. Even then, the petitioner herein has not filed any reply disputing the said facts.

According to respondent No.6, she is suffering from cardiac ailments. In proof of the same, she has filed medical reports of Sunshine Hospitals. The petitioner is harassing respondent No.6. Therefore, she has approached Sakhi - One Stop Centre, Medchal. They have provided her with shelter. She also has an unmarried son, who is also suffering from Type-I diabetes. By virtue of the specific acts of the petitioner, respondent No.6 and her unmarried son are without any shelter.

Learned counsel for respondent No.6, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein being a daughter-in-law also falls within the definition of ‘children’ under Section - 2 (a) of the Act, 2007 and she has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section - 16 of the Act, 2007 before the Appellate Tribunal. Instead of doing so, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section - 2 (a) of the Act, 2007 deals with the definition of ‘children’, and it says that ‘children’ includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter, but does not include a minor. Section - 4 of the Act, 2007 deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizen. Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.6 and she is staying with her children in the house that belongs to respondent No.6. It is also not in dispute that the subject house is in the name of respondent No.6.

This Court in H. Deepika v. Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal Order in W.P. No.5125 of 2017, decided on 05.03.2020 interpreted Section 16 of the Act, 2007 and held that an appeal filed by children under the said provision is maintainable. The said order was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 in W.A. No.547 of 2020. Therefore, the petitioner herein instead of preferring an appeal in terms of Section - 16 of the Act, 2007, filed the present writ petition.

In the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, there is specific mention about respondent No.6 approaching the Sakhi - One Stop Centre, Medchal on 03.09.2022, upon which they have interacted with her and came to know about the harassment meted out to her by the petitioner. They have also conducted individual counseling. The said Sakhi - One Stop Centre, Medchal tried to resolve the issue between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and the petitioner did not respond. They have provided shelter to respondent No.6 on 05.09.2022 and 06.09.2022. Based on the said facts, respondent No.3 had taken up the case on record and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner herein has attended the inquiry. Respondent No.6 has also specifically contended before respondent No.3 that the petitioner owns two houses out of which one was let out on rent and she is harassing respondent No.6. Whereas, the petitioner herein has claimed that she is a widow and she has two daughters. After expiry of her husband, she shifted to her mother’s-in-law house.

As stated above, admittedly, the petitioner has two more houses and she has admitted the said fact before respondent No.3. Even according to the petitioner, after expiry of her husband, she shifted to the house belongs to respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 is 72 years old woman. She also has an unmarried son who is suffering from Type - I Diabetes. In proof of the same, she has filed all the documents including copy of sale deed, Encumbrance Certificate, property tax details etc.

According to this Court, a daughter-in-law falls within the definition of ‘children’ under Section - 2 (a) of the Act, 2007. The said view was also expressed by this Court in H. Deepika (supra). It is relevant to note that the legislature also intends to expand the definition of ‘children’ to include daughter-in-law. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill, 2019 pending before the Lok Sabha substitutes the following definition in place of Section 2(a) of the Act, 2007:

“3. In section 2 of the principal Act,—

(i) for clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:—

'(a) "children", in relation to a parent or a senior citizen, means his son or daughter, whether biological, adoptive or step-child and includes his son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandson, grand-daughter and the legal guardian of minor children, if any.”

Further, the Standing Committee of the Parliament to which the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was referred, in its report dated 29.01.2021 also approved the expansion of Section - 2(a) of the Act, 2007 to include daughter-in-law. The relevant portion of the said Standing Report is extracted below:

“The Committee note that the Amendment Bill has broadened the definition of ‘children’ so that senior citizens and parents may be maintained by their son, daughter (whether biological, adoptive or step), son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandson, grand-daughter and legal guardian of minor children. The Committee deem it to be a significant measure as maintenance may now be claimed from all admissible relatives/legal heirs of parents and senior citizens. Further, the above change in the definition of ‘children’ has also been concomitantly reflected in the definition of ‘parent’ in the Amendment Bill. They also note that with the revised definition of ‘relative’ in the Bill, wherein minors have been included in the category of ‘relative’, senior citizens would now be able to claim maintenance from minors too through their legal guardians.”

Further, various High Courts including the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Allahabad High Court have held that an appeal under Section - 16 can be filed by children also. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. 2019 SCC OnLine All 5196 relying on the decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864 has held as follows:

“8. In a similar controversy the Madras High Court in Balamurugan v. Rukmani (C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 437 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 decided on, 29 April 2015) in agreement with the view taken in Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) has held that an appeal under section 16 of the Act, 2007 would be maintainable at the behest of both the parties, i.e. at the instance of the aggrieved party for the reason that where the Tribunal decides a case in favour of the senior citizens or parents, the children or dependent or relatives against whom the order is passed and against whom it can be enforced under section 11 of the Act, 2007 would be the aggrieved person and have a right to file an appeal.

We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) and Balamurugan (supra) because if the right of appeal is denied to the aggrieved party, namely, child or children or relatives the appeal clause under the Act, 2007 would be frustrated and tantamount to denying them the similar right of appeal as provided to another party who is the senior citizens or parents.”

Therefore, as the definition of ‘children’ includes daughter-in-law under Section - 2(a) of the Act, 2007, the petitioner being a daughter-in-law can file an appeal in terms of Section - 16 of the Act, 2007. She can raise all the contentions which she raised in the present writ petition in such appeal.

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section - 16 of the Act, 2007 and also an Interlocutory Application seeking to stay the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2022. The petitioner herein shall file the said appeal along with stay application within one (01) week from today, and on filing the same, the Appellate Authority shall decide the stay application within one (01) week thereafter. Till stay application is filed by the petitioner and is decided by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No.C/1153/2022 shall not be given effect. Liberty is also given to both the petitioner and respondent No.6 to raise all the grounds which they have raised in the present writ petition before the Appellate Authority. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.