IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24392 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:12.08.2014 Major Harmohinder Singh (Retd.) son of late Capt.
Karora Singh, resident of House No.435, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh..Petitioner versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Bably Kumari, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate, for respondents 5 and 7.
---- 1.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
Yes.
2.
To be referred to the reporters or not ?.
Yes.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?.
Yes.
---- K.Kannan, J.
(Oral) 1.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stays confined to an argument that the authorities are required to be constituted to give effect to the provision of Section 22 for protection of life and liberty of a senior citizen under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Kumar Sanjeev 2014.08.22 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.24392 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Citizens Act of 2007 (for short, Act of 2007).He would argue that there has been a direction by a Division Bench of this Court in Justice Shanti Sarup Devan Versus Union Territory in LPA No.1007 of 2013 to the Chandigarh Administration and would seek for a similar direction for the State of Punjab as well.
The prayer is unnecessary since the rules have been framed which are called as the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012.
The Rules have been notified vide No.G.SR58C.A.56/2007/S.
32/2012, dated 17.10.2012 and published in the Punjab Government Gazette, Legislative Supplement, Part III, dated October 26, 2012 (KRTK4 1934 SAKA).If the prayer is for constitution of authority to consider the petitioner's claim that the wife (who is divorced) and sons must be ejected out of the house for his own safety, I will find that such a cause for such a prayer is already fully addressed by an institution of a civil suit by the petitioner against his divorced wife and sons in the court of the Civil Judge at Mohali.
The suit is said to be still pending.
The wife and children appear to have also filed a counter claim in the said suit.
The couRs.of the proceedings in the said case will take care of the petitioner's case and the relief cannot be duplicated through a writ petition by only adding the State and its functionaries for framing of rules.
Kumar Sanjeev 2014.08.22 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.24392 of 2013 (O&M) -3- 2.
Even at the interlocutory stage, there was a petition for injunction by the wife against the petitioner from dispossessing her.
This court had declined the relief in the case reported as Harmohinder Singh Versus Ranjit Kaur and others-2009 (4) PLR88 The petitioner seems to be labouring hard to eject the wife out of his house.
The suit will decide the respective rights of parties.
As a principle of law, it must be remembered, maintenance includes a right of residence (Komalam Amma V.
Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and othes-AIR2009SC626.
A wife includes divorced wife (B.P.Achala Anand V.
S.Appi Reddy and another- AIR2005SC986.
A divorced wife is to be protected against her husband by a provision for maintenance including a right to residence (Rajesh Burmann V.
Mitul Chatterjee-AIR2009SC651.
3.
It must again be remembered that direction given by the Division Bench in Justice Shanti Sarup's case to be an extraordinary case in an extraordinary situation.
He was a former Chief Justice of this Court who was seeking for protection in the court he presided.
The relief granted cannot be a precedent to a commonplace occurrence of the daily squabble at home between spouses or members in the family and a precipitate action for ejectment of a wife or a daughter-in-law from the matrimonial home, which is understood as a shared household between husband and wife or a father, son and daughter-in-law.
Even a potent and Kumar Sanjeev 2014.08.22 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.24392 of 2013 (O&M) -4- protective legislation like Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, Act of 2005) will be rendered effete, if it were to be wrongly assumed that a father can throw out his daughter or daughter-in-law; that a husband can throw out the wife, estranged wife or divorced wife.
The provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Act of 2005, referred to above, cannot be used for cross purposes, one annihilating the other.
A parent who invokes the provisions of the Act of 2007 cannot create a situation that makes irrelevant the right of a female for securing a protection which is guaranteed under the Act of 2005.
The provisions of the protection which is contemplated under Chapter V is an empowering provision for the welfare of a senior citizen that must be read cohesively that the right of a woman to be protected which is guaranteed under the Act of 2005.
Justice Shanti Sarup's case (supra) must be confined to the facts of the case.
It was the case of a person, who had made provision for son and daughter-in-law for a separate house elsewhere.
There were incidents of intense disharmony and physical and mental assaults.
No two cases are alike.
It will be wrong to import a principle of law from the judgment that law recognizes an action for ejectment for a husband or father in law to deny a woman a right to shelter, the most required protection for a woman, the recognition of her right to safety and a non-negotiable tool for nurturing her dignified living.
Kumar Sanjeev 2014.08.22 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.24392 of 2013 (O&M) -5- 4.
It will be inexigent for the court to make an intervention in the manner sought for in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE1208.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.08.22 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document