Partly allowed

Lily Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024WRIC/2273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court stayed the operation of an order by the Maintenance Tribunal granting an injunction against the petitioner to prevent her from entering the respondent's house. The Court noted that Section 21 deals with publicity and Section 4 requires inability to maintain, neither of which justified the injunction granted by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

Lily Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2273 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Lily Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyan Singh Chauhan

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Ratan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Gyan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel representing the opposite party no.4.

¶8

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the S.D.M/Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2007'), whereby the Tribunal has allowed an application filed by the opposite party no.4 for restraining the petitioner from creating any interference in possession of the house of the opposite party no.4 i.e. House No.5/347, Viraj Khand, Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶9

The petitioner had filed an appeal, namely, Appeal No.2497 of 2023 against the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2023 which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 07.08.2023.

¶10

Opposite party no.4 had filed the application under section 21 of the Act, 2007 wherein he has stated that the petitioner got married to the younger son of the opposite party no.4 on 12.07.2021. She behaves abnormally with her husband, opposite party no.4, his elder son and elder daughter-in-law who live with him. The petitioner has also lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station-Panchkuiya Rakbaganj, Agra, U.P. The opposite party no.4 has stated that the petitioner resides in a rented accommodation at Agra. She came to the house of opposite party no.4 on 18.10.2022 and tried to enter into the house without permission of the opposite party no.4. The opposite party no.4 further stated that the petitioner has made repetitive attempts to enter into her house. He prayed that the petitioner be restrained from entering into the house of opposite party no.4 without his permission.

¶11

Since the application has been filed under section 21 of the Act, 2007, it will be appropriate to have look at the aforesaid statutory provision, which reads as follows:

¶12

"21. Measures for publicity, awareness, etc., for welfare of senior citizens.-The State Government shall, take all measures to ensure that-

¶13

(i) the provisions of this Act are given wide publicity through public media including the television, radio and the print, at regular intervals;

¶14

(ii) the Central Government and State Government Officers, including the police officers and the members of the judicial service, are given periodic sensitization and awareness training on the issues relating to this Act;

¶15

(iii) effective co-ordination between the services provided by the concerned Ministries or Departments dealing with law, home affairs,health and welfare, to address the issue relating to the welfare of the senior citizens and periodically review of the same conducted

¶16

A bare perusal of section 21 of the Act, 2007 indicate that it empowers the State Government to take certain measures with the objects mentioned in the clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the aforesaid section. Section 21 does not contemplate any action to be taken by the District Magistrate or by the Maintenance Tribunal. The impugned order has been passed by the S.D.M. acting as the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Act, 2007, which has been constituted for the purposes of adjudicating and deciding upon the order for maintenance under section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that an application for maintenance under section 4 may be made (a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, (b) if he is incapable by any other person or organization authorized by him or; (c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo moto.

¶17

Section 4 of the Act provides that a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5. In the entire application filed by the opposite party no.4, there is no mention that he is unable to maintain himself.

¶18

Section 5 of the Act, 2007 provides that the Tribunal may pass an order for payment of monthly amount of maintenance. The word 'maintenance' has been defined in section 2(b) of the Act which provides that "maintenance" includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment.

¶19

A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 2007 prima

¶20

facie indicates that the application under section 4 of the Act can be made by a parent or senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself i.e. who is unable to provide food, clothing, residence and/or medical attendance and treatment for himself. It is not the case of the opposite party no.4 that he is unable to provide food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment for himself. He has not claimed any amount of maintenance from the petitioner.

¶21

The opposite party no.4 has simply prayed for restraining the entry of the petitioner in his house. This is a relief in the nature of injunction and prima facie I am of the view that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of such an injunction against daughter-in-law of the house owner, who is not unable to maintain himself.

¶22

The matter requires consideration.

¶23

12. List in the week commencing 27.05.2024.

¶24

In view of the reasons stated above, it is provided that operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Lucknow in Case No.23883/2022 under section 7(1) of the Act, 2007 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 akhilesh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lily Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lily Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ritesh Chakre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Binay Kumar Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Akhilesh @ Kallu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajbhadur Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Gopi Chandra @ Gopi Chandra Yadav vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others