The Bombay High Court recently came to the rescue of an elderly couple residing with their son and his family at a flat in Khar, Mumbai.
Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi ordered the elderly couple’s daughter-in-law, Simran to leave the said flat after noting that she could not be allowed to harass her in-laws in the twilight of their lives and directed her to find an alternate accommodation for herself.
The elderly couple had filed an appeal against an order of dismissal of a notice of motion seeking compliance of an earlier order by the trial court dated July 19, 2018 directing Simran’s husband to find an alternate accommodation for her within six months.
However, despite Rajesh (appellant’s son) suggesting over 45 different options for Simran to stay in, she rejected all of them.
According to the appellants, there were compelling reasons to seek Simran’s eviction from the house. The said flat was bought by the appellants and Rajesh was given a share in the flat only if he would pay for it later which he did not. Importantly, a gift deed dated March 23, 2015 was executed by Rajesh, transferring his share of the flat to his mother.
After passing 70 years of age, the appellant couple argued it was not possible for them stay with their daughter-in-law who was both “abusive and aggressive”, had been harassing them and ill-treating them.
The appellants argued that Simran had also filed false criminal complaints as well as a case of molestation against her 72-year-old father-in-law. CCTV cameras had to be installed in the common areas of the house because of this, they submitted.
Whereas, Simran contested the said appeal and stated that she could not be dispossessed from her matrimonial home and that she had already challenged the gift deed executed by her husband.
The court noted how Simran had refused the offer of mediation and also rejected so many options given to her by Rajesh for accommodation. She even refused a few options available in the same area that she is living in currently.
“In this situation, allowing the Appellants, who are at the fag-end of their lives, to continue to suffer the harassment at the hands of Respondent No.2 in the twilight years of their lives, would be a cruelty to them. Moreover, if Respondent No.2 is making such allegations of sexual molestation at the hands of Appellant No.1, then also, it becomes difficult to understand as to why she wants to continue to reside in the suit flat with the Appellants. The CCTV Camera installed in the suit flat for the safety of both the parties is also not allowed to be in working condition. This Court has also already held that, “considering the allegations made by Respondent No.2 against Appellant No.1, it would not be in the interest of either of the parties to continue to reside together”.
Thus, the appeal was allowed and Simran was directed to remove herself from the said flat within a month.
Read the Judgment Here