Disposed

Smt.Vandana Singh v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2021WRIC/12221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of petitions by a daughter-in-law and son challenging a District Magistrate's order ensuring elderly parents' residence. Pending civil/criminal cases regarding property were noted. The court mandated parents' residence and children's constructive possession to resolve differences amidst pending suits while deferring shop rent rights to civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Ordered elderly parents to continue residing independently; petitioners to stay in exclusive possession (constructive possession for daughter-in-law); shop rent rights deferred to competent civil cour

Smt.Vandana Singh Vs State of U P and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12221 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt.Vandana Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishakha Pande,Neeraj Rai,Sr. Advocate Sri Rakesh Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Saroj Kumar Yadav,Saurabh Srivastava

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26251 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshay Pratap,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Srivastava

¶7

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶8

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶9

These two writ petitions are by the younger son and his wife questioning an order passed by the District Magistrate, in exercise of his power under Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Senior Citizen & Guardian Welfare Rule, 2014, allowing the aged parents to stay in House No. S-2/326 E-1 Rajarshi Nagar, Gilat Bazar, Sikraul, Varanasi and also direct the northern part of the house to be put back in the original shape, so that easementary rights to have excess to air and water is not interfered with for the residents and also to ensure proper maintenance of the elderly parents. The order of District Magistrate is pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24732 of 2020.

¶10

Both the petitions were connected earlier by us and we heard learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners in both the matters as also the learned counsel for the parents and real elder brother of petitioner in

¶11

Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021. Having heard the parties and considering the fact that dispute herein is between the elderly parents and their younger son and daughter-in-law, we thought it appropriate to explore the possibility of amicable resolution of dispute between them. Pursuant to our direction the parties appeared and they were permitted to interact amongst themselves. We were informed prior to recess that the parties have not been able to resolve their differences and, therefore, we heard the parties in our chambers so as to discharge our obligation in terms of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have had the benefit of hearing the parties personally also. We found that the parties had stuck to their respective position and the possibility of any amicable settlement seemed remote. Realising that our attempts to have the disputes resolved amicably has failed we directed the matter to be listed today.

¶12

We have heard Sri Rakesh Pande and R. K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsels assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande, Advocate, Sri Akshay Pratap, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Rituvendra Singh, Sri Nagvanshi, Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsels for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and perused the materials on record.

¶13

It transpires that the elderly parents of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021 are well into their eighties.

¶14

The third respondent who is the father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021, as also the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021, as also his elder brother Sri Satya Prakash Singh @ Ashok are all Advocates practising before the District Court at Varanasi. We further find that there are three distinct dwelling units each of which is in possession of the three factions. The father, who is respondent No. 3 and is about 86 years of age is residing in House No S-2/326 E-1

¶15

2 of 5

¶16

Rajarshi Nagar, Gilat Bazar, Sikraul, Varanasi while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021 is having his distinct dwelling unit in the nearby which is numbered as house A-23 Patrakar Puram Colony, Chuppepur Varanasi. This house is said to be three storey and is in exclusive possession of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021. The elder brother of the writ petitioner i.e. Shiv Prakash Singh is residing in one distinct part of House No. S-2/326, E-1 Rajarshi Nagar, Gilat Bazar, Varanasi. According to petitioners the property on which the houses situate originally belonged to the elder brother of respondent no.3, late Markenday Singh, who is said to have died leaving behind a will. This will is in dispute. The ownership over the property in possession of the two brothers and father is being contested by the other faction and original suits in respect of such dispute are pending before the Civil Court. The suit apparently has been filed by the petitioners herein.

¶17

During the course of hearing as also during the interaction with the parties we found that serious charges are levelled by the parties against each other and criminal proceedings have also been initiated. This appears to be the consequence once the close family family members fall apart. Since the issues relating to rights of the parties over the immovable property as also criminal proceedings are pending consideration before the appropriate forum, we deem it appropriate to refrain from expressing any opinion on merits with regard to respective claims of the parties which are yet to be decided in pending civil and criminal proceedings.

¶18

The merits of the order passed by the District Magistrate has been examined by us keeping in view the objects of the The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the rules framed thereunder, which is primarily to protect senior citizens who are left to face adverse circumstances on account of breakup of the old

¶19

3 of 5

¶20

concept of joint families. The authorities of the State have been roped in with the object of ensuring proper maintenance of senior citizens and to secure their comfortable living. The District Magistrate vide his order under challenge has taken note of all such factors and has directed the elderly parents to occupy the house in which they are otherwise presently residing.

¶21

The petitioner in Writ petition No. 12221 of 2021, who happens to be daughter-in-law, states that she is also residing in one part of the same house. It is also urged that the living of the daughter-in-law in the house is otherwise admitted to the elderly parents since in para 3 of the counter affidavit there is an admission that petitioner (daughter-in-law) has not been evicted in absence of proper police support.

¶22

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case as also the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties. It is not in issue that the husband of petitioner Smt. Vandana Singh who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26251 of 2021 actually owns house in the near vicinity i.e. House No. A-23, Patrakar Puram Colony, Chuppepur Varanasi where he is actually residing. It is not in dispute that this house is sufficiently large so as to accommodate the petitioners who are both husband and wife. There are no matrimonial issues between both the petitioners otherwise. In such circumstances we are of the view that both the petitioners must stay in the house which is in possession of petitioner Shiv Prakash Singh. The elderly parents can continue to live in the house independently and with their own free will without any constant threat of discord on account of the poor relations with their daughter-in-law. The elder brother can continue to live in his portion of the house. This arrangement must continue till the parties can resolve their differences amicably or the issues are settled by the competent court of law. The two rooms which are stated to be in possession of petitioner (daughter-in-law) in Writ Petition No. 12221 of

¶23

4 of 5

¶24

2021 can be locked by her and would remain in her constructive possession till the resolution of dispute by the parties. She will also have the right to visit the place once in 15 days, after intimation to the local police, who shall ensure that there is no untoward incident at the time of such visit.

¶25

We hasten to clarify that the above arrangement has been made by us with the object of securing right of residence to all, awaiting resolution of disputes finally, by the Courts, where the matters are pending consideration and this arrangement would not be to be the prejudice of rights and contentions of the parties in pending civil and criminal proceedings.

¶26

So far as payment of rent in respect of the shops under tenancy are concerned we are informed that proceedings have been instituted before the Civil Court and an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Original Suit No. 1645 of 2021 has been placed before us. Three other suits are also stated to have been instituted and are pending. Since the Civil Court is ceased of the matter relating to tenancy in respect of four shops we leave the issues to be resolved by such Court after hearing the parties concerned. The order passed by the District Magistrate, to that extent, is modified and it is provided that rights to receive rent in respect of the shop would be regulated by the orders of the competent court in aforesaid civil proceedings.

¶27

Writ petitions are accordingly, disposed off.

¶28

Order Date:- 21.12.2021

¶29

Abhishek Singh

¶30

5 of 5

Smt.Vandana Singh v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vandana Singh v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Beena Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Navyug Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Khursheed Ahmad Vs Union of India and Another

Bal Chandra Shaw and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Anandi Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others