In the recent judgment delivered by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Calcutta High Court, on 23rd July 2021, the Court gave a landmark decision on the rights of senior citizens.
The Court upheld the principle, also followed by Delhi High Court in Sandeep Gulati v. Divisional Commissioner and Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manmohan Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, Samsher Singh v. District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, that the children and their spouses residing in the house of a senior citizen are at best “licensee”, and it comes to an end when senior citizen is no longer comfortable with their children and their families.
The issues for consideration before the Court were:
a. Availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court, regarding this issue, held that the senior citizen’s right to exclusive residence must be seen through the “prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India” Thus, the writ court must aid such senior citizens by compelling them to approach civil Court, barred by Section 27 of Senior Citizens Act 2007, or to take recourse to a particular statute like 2007 Act is highly erroneous and painful for a person, who is in sunset stage of life, hence the principle of alternative remedy as laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registar of Trademark, upheld in Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh cannot be strictly applied to Senior Citizens.
b. The right of a daughter-in-law of residence is to be provided by either the husband or the father-in-law if directed by a competent court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
On this issue, the Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, wherein it was held that the Writ Court, hearing the plea that a senior citizen does not want children and their families to live with them, must harmoniously construe the provisions of the 2007 Act and PWDV Act, 2005 as both the special statutes have social justice as its objective thus purpose of one should not be ignored while interpreting the other.
In light of this, the Court held that since, in the present case, no right of residence had been sought by the Daughter-in-law. Hence, there are no restrictions on senior citizens’ right to exclusive residence rights and the eviction of their sons and daughters-in-law.
The Court finally observed that “A nation that cannot take care of its aged, old and infirm citizens cannot be regarded as having achieved complete civilization.” and disposed of the petition.
Leave A Comment