of eviction or recovery of possession has been sought thus without reference to the applicant’s needs as a senior citizen to use the property as part of her maintenance. This, as I have explained above, obviously cannot be done. On the second issue, namely, whether the Respondents were harassing the applicant mentally or physically, the tribunal has not found anything against Respondent No.2, the Petitioner’s husband. So far as Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 are concerned, the court has similarly not found any act of mental or physical harassment on their part. The only acts of physical or mental harassment that are found are against the Petitioner herein. That, I am afraid, is neither here nor there. As a pre-condition for any order to be passed under Section 4 of the Act, if a senior citizen is a parent, the order must find that one of or more of his or her children, not being a minor, has or have breached the obligation to maintain him or her, so that the senior citizen is not able to lead a normal life. That her daughter-in-law has been harassing her, or even, for that matter, not maintaining her, is no ground for seeking an order under Section 4. It is only in case of a childless senior citizen that the other relatives, who are referred to in clause (g) of Section 2, are obligated to maintain the senior citizen, so that he or she may lead a normal life. A daughter-in-law may well come within the expression “relative” in clause (g) of Section 2; but no order can be sought against her for that reason by a senior citizen who has a child or grand-child, who is not a minor.
