Father, son get rough deal in violation of female officer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an eviction order against an Ambala woman and her three children after the court heard that her estranged husband had transferred the property in question to his father, months before initiating divorce proceedings against her.

The Ambala court order against the woman, who is a cop, had come on a plea by one Buta Ram, who had sought her evicted from his property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Under the 2007 Act was a parent can have a property registered in his name vacated if his children fail to look after him.

“On the whole, this court finds that the facts involved in the present petition do not appear to be prejudicial to the life and liberty of respondent No. 1 (father-in-law) or prejudicial to the property owned by him. Therefore, finding this court no factual or legal basis to sustain the order impugned in the present petition.……the action of respondent no.1 was of a secret nature and therefore the proceedings instituted by respondent no.1 which is not in good faith, shall not be allowed to proceed further,” the court said.

It had come before the court that the house in question was transferred by Buta Ram in his son’s name sometime after his marriage in 2006. But his son, also a policeman, got involved in several FIRs and vacated the house in 2018, leaving behind the petitioner Parvinder Kumar and his three children behind.

His father, an elderly citizen, lived with his other son some distance from the property. But in May 2020, Parvinder Kumar transferred the ownership of the house in question to his father and filed for divorce in October 2020. The father then filed a claim under the Elderly Act to have the woman and her children thrown out of the house in question. The Ambala Additional District Magistrate passed the stay order in March 2021, which was challenged in the high court.

The woman told the high court that her father-in-law had started the case precisely to depose her and three children. She had also offered to hand over part of the house and continue to live in the remaining part with her children, but he did not agree.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed “..there is substance in the arguments advanced … that the case against the petitioner (woman), in all their manifestations, is secret in nature; to be with the wish of the petitioner’s husband.”

The woman had even offered to support her father-in-law by paying all the bills. However, it seemed that her father-in-law did not seem to be interested in living in the house as he lived with his other son. Therefore, the question of not maintaining the father-in-law does not arise. Moreover, she was not liable to maintain him, the bench said, quashing the order of eviction.


Leave a Reply