Latest news with #Section498-A
News18
10 hours ago
- News18
Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The senior citizen couple had moved the high court challenging an order in favour of the daughter-in-law that quashed the eviction issued by the senior citizens tribunal. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that a son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their ageing parents to let them reside in their home against their wishes, while reaffirming the rights of a senior citizen couple. A bench presided over by Justice Prafulla S Khubalkar held that the son and daughter-in-law had no legal right to reside in the house, especially when relations had become hostile. The judge said, 'In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such, there is no legal basis for the claim of respondent No.4 to reside in the petitioners' house, and on the contrary, the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of respondent Nos.3 and 4." The verdict came in response to a plea filed by the senior citizen petitioners, challenging the appellate tribunal's order that had ruled in favour of the daughter-in-law and set aside an earlier direction asking the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house. Before the High Court, it was the petitioners' case that they had allowed their son and daughter-in-law, who had a love marriage, to reside in their home, considering their immediate needs after marriage. However, the relations soon turned sour, as the petitioners alleged that the daughter-in-law began filing frivolous cases against them. They then approached the senior citizens' tribunal seeking eviction of both the son and the daughter-in-law from their property. The tribunal had allowed their plea. The daughter-in-law had then contested the order passed by the tribunal before the appellate tribunal. Notably, she had filed divorce proceedings against her husband, along with proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A against her husband and in-laws. Before the Appellate Tribunal, she contended that she had a right to reside in the property in question, mainly because the matrimonial proceedings filed by her were still pending. While allowing her plea, the appellate tribunal denied the relief sought under the Senior Citizens Act by the petitioners in the present case. It asked the petitioners to initiate appropriate civil proceedings, noting that the dispute was civil in nature. The senior citizen petitioners before the high court, represented by Advocate NS Jain, had argued that the appellate tribunal had adopted a perverse approach, defeating the object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act, which ensures the protection of the rights of senior citizens. It was argued that the daughter-in-law had filed frivolous and malicious cases against them. On the other hand, Advocate ML Sangit, the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the tribunals, contended that the tribunal had merely allowed the daughter-in-law's appeal and asked the parents to pursue eviction through civil courts. It was argued that the tribunal had rightly refused the claim for eviction. Rejecting these claims, the high court said that directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for the eviction of their daughter-in-law was detrimental and defeated the purpose of the Senior Citizens Act. While considering the factual matrix of the present case, the court opined that the appellate tribunal had grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach the civil court to seek eviction. In a noteworthy interpretation of the statute, which specifically refers to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the court said that it was a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting and upholding the welfare of senior citizens. 'It is thus evident that the appellate tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the appellate tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens," the court added. Accordingly, the high court set aside and quashed the order passed by the appellate tribunal. It went on to uphold the order passed by the senior citizens tribunal, which had granted the elderly couple relief. Thus, the son and daughter-in-law were directed to vacate the property within 30 days. The court also imposed costs on them for failing to comply with a previous order by which it had directed them to pay Rs 20,000 per month for continued occupation. First Published: June 23, 2025, 15:44 IST News india Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
NDTV
25-04-2025
- NDTV
Dowry Death Affects Foundation Of Dignity But No Blanket Ban On Bail: Court
New Delhi: Offence of dowry death strikes at the foundations of dignity, equality and justice in domestic life, but there is no blanket prohibition against the grant of bail in such cases, the Delhi High Court has said. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while granting the relief of bail to a dowry death accused, said the Court was fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of such incidents but a decision of bail must rest on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the wife of the accused applicant passed away in November 2023 after she allegedly hung herself from a ceiling fan in the bathroom. Justice Narula observed that the death of a young woman within a year of marriage under unnatural circumstances inevitably invited serious legal scrutiny, but the material on record, in this case, prima facie revealed significant ambiguities and lacked the specificity that section 304B (dowry death) IPC demanded. "This Court remains fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of dowry deaths. Such offences strike at the foundations of dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life," said the Court in a judgement dated April 22. "However, the observations (of the Supreme Court) in (the case of) Shabeen Ahmad cannot be read as laying down a blanket prohibition against the grant of bail in every case under Section 304B IPC. Rather, the (top) Court reaffirmed that bail decisions must rest on the individual facts and circumstances of each case, the nature and weight of the evidence, and the overall context in which the allegations are situated," it stated. In the present case, the Court asserted that the absence of any "proximate allegation" shortly before the death created a doubt, and the statements of the victim's family members were devoid of specific details, particularly with respect to the date, time or frequency of the alleged demands. It added that the alleged demand for a car was mentioned only in the post-incident statements made by the family of the victim, and there was no contemporaneous complaint during her lifetime alleging harassment or demand for dowry. With respect to section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, the Court said mere suspicion of an extramarital affair did not per se amount to abetment of suicide and prima facie, there was no allegation that the applicant engaged in any behaviour to trigger the victim's suicide. An extramarital relationship per se may not come within the ambit of Section 498-A (cruelty) IPC, it further stated. Noting that the chargesheet was filed after the completion of the investigation and the trial was unlikely to conclude shortly, the Court opined that the continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no fruitful purpose. It also observed that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim had already been discharged, and the sister-in-law, who faced identical charges as the applicant, was on bail. The Court released the applicant subject to certain conditions and said, "The object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial."
