The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a 70-year-old mother against her daughter seeking her eviction from the flat they reside in alleging that she tortured her both mentally and physically. After Court's warning in the previous hearing, the daughter filed an undertaking stating that she will be evicting the said flat along with her son within eight weeks.
Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice NR Borkar referred to the story of Shravan Kumar from the Ramayana-
"Our country has always been proud of progeny like Shravan Kumar, who to fulfill the wish of his poor, blind and ageing parents, took them on a pilgrimage by carrying them on his shoulder in two baskets put on either side of the bamboo stick, and whilst trying to collect water on his way from a stream, to quench the thirst of his parents, became a target of King Dashrath's arrow.
It is unfortunate that in the last several years Courts are repeatedly witnessing, old parents knocking at its doors, in the twilight years of their lives seeking redressal of their grievances against their children."
Previously, the petitioner mother filed an application under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before Sub Divisional Officer, Maintenance Tribunal for Parents and Senior Citizens, on March 16, 2020 seeking Sarita's eviction from the said Flat. However due to the lockdown, the Tribunal was not available to decide her application, thus the present writ petition was filed.
The petitioner Rajni Somkuwar alleged that her daughter Sarita, who is a divorcee and is forcefully residing in her flat with her 19-year-old son, tortures her and even took control of the petitioner's accounts forcefully.
On June 5, after concluding that the petitioner seriously apprehended mental and physical harassment at the hands of Sarita, Court issued a stern warning to Sarita and her son that if there are any further complaints from the petitioner about harassment, then both Sarita and her son will be restrained from entering the flat in question.
If children cannot take care of their parent/s and allow them to live in peace, they at least ought not to make their life a living hell, Court had observed.
The respondent argued that her mother was overreacting at the instance of her younger sibling Vaishali who has come to India temporarily from Singapore with her family.
On Friday, Court noted that despite the June 5 order, the petitioner mother has not started residing in the said fat. However, whilst refuting the allegations of her daughter, petitioner made an offer to allow Sarita and her son to reside in one of her fats at Nalasopara, on and from July 15, 2020, if she agreed to vacate the said fat along with her son, so that she (the Petitioner) could start residing again in the said fat for the remainder of her life in peace.
Thus, Sarita and her son filed an undertaking declaring that they will be vacating the said flat within eight weeks.
Court accepted the said undertaking and said that if Sarita and her son are unable to find premises on leave and license basis within a period of 8 weeks from today, the petitioner shall allow them to reside in her flat at Nalasopara, until they find a premises of their choice on leave and license basis.
Moreover, the bench concluded that none of the allegations made by the petitioner mother and her daughter against each other stand established and directed both parties not to publicise any allegations against each other in any manner whatsoever including but not limited to correspondence, social media, newspapers, etc.
Click Here To Download Order