Bombay High Court
Bhalchandra Vyankatesh ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:44415-DB
bipin prithiani
1
18-wp-3740.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3740 OF 2024
Bhalchandra Vyankatesh
Shrurangarpure & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Amol B. Jagtap for the Petitioners.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Lalita Panchakshari for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 13th OCTOBER 2025
P.C. :
. The petitioners in this petition are senior citizens. They have
challenged concurrent orders passed by the Tribunal constituted
under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Senior
Citizens Act' for short) and the Appellate Authority constituted
under the Senior Citizens Act.
2. The tribunal as well the appellate authority have
concurrently denied the relief sought by the petitioners for a
direction to evict their elder son i.e. respondent No.2 and
daughter-in-law i.e. respondent No.3 from the house in which the
petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing. But, a
direction is issued to the respondents to ensure that they take care
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
of the petitioners/senior citizens and that they do not disturb the
petitioners/senior citizens in peacefully living their life. It is also
indicated that if the said respondents violated directions, they
would be liable to face criminal prosecution.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by denial of relief of a
direction to evict respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the said house.
4. The documents on record show that the respondent No.2
filed a suit for partition, separation possession, declaration and
perpetual injunction against his parents i.e. the petitioners, as also
his siblings i.e. a younger brother and a sister. The subject matter
of challenge in the said suit, in addition to claiming partition, was
a registered gift deed dated 6th September 2014, whereby the
petitioner No.1 had gifted rights in the said house exclusively in
favour of the younger brother of respondent No.2. The said suit
was filed on 19th March 2015. The present proceedings under the
Senior Citizens Act were initiated by the petitioners on 30 th
September 2022. It was claimed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3
were harassing the petitioner, while living in the same house and
that complaints had been lodged with the Police from 10 th May
2015 onward. Reference was made to some such complaints made
to the Police authorities and after levelling allegations against
respondent Nos.2 and 3 regarding continuous harassment, a
specific prayer was made before the tribunal under the provisions
of the Senior Citizens Act for a direction to evict them from the
house. It is relevant to note that the petitioners did not pray for
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
any direction towards maintenance against respondent Nos.2 and
3.
5. In the interregnum, on 10 th January 2017, the competent
civil Court, before whom the said suit was filed by the respondent
No.2, granted an order of temporary injunction in his favour by
allowing the application at exhibit 5. The parties appeared before
the tribunal and raised contentions in support of their respective
stands. After considering the material on record, by an order dated
28th June 2023, the tribunal partly allowed the application filed by
the petitioners, directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take care
of the petitioners/senior citizens and not to create any disturbance
in their peaceful life, with an indication that if the directions were
violated, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would face appropriate
criminal proceedings.
6. Since the direction seeking eviction was not granted to the
petitioners, they filed appeal before the Collector under the
provisions of the Senior Citizens Act. By the impugned order
dated 11th January 2024, the Collector/Appellate Authority
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the tribunal-Sub
Divisional Officer (SDO).
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present
petition in which the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their reply
affidavits. The respondent No.1-State has filed its reply affidavit
and upon rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the
petition was taken up for hearing.
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
8. Mr. Amol Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners vehemently submitted that the tribunal as well as the
appellate authority lost sight of the very object of the Senior
Citizens Act, while passing the impugned orders. It was submitted
that the tribunal as well as the appellate authority were unduly
influenced by the pendency of the proceedings before the
competent civil Court initiated by the respondent No.2. It was
submitted that the claim of the respondent No.2 that the subject
house property was part of ancestral property was fallacious and
that even if the said argument of the respondent No.2 was to be
accepted, definition of property under Section 2(f) of the Senior
Citizens Act covers ancestral property also. In such a situation, the
pendency of the proceedings before the competent civil Court, the
order passed on the application for temporary injunction and the
suit being eventually decreed by judgment and order dated 18 th
March 2024, ought not to have influenced the tribunal as well as
the appellate authority in holding against the petitioners.
9. It was submitted that the petitioners had approached the
appellate authority from the year 2015 onwards, with regard to
the repeated harassment meted out by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
But, there was no action taken by the Police in that regard, which
was completely against the protection afforded to senior citizens
under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and the Rules i.e.
the Maharashtra Maintenance and Welfare Parents and Senior
Citizens Rules, 2010 framed under the said Act. By referring to the
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
relevant portion of the said Rules, it was submitted that the Police
was not performing its duty as expected, due to which the
petitioners were continuously facing harassment at the hands of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
10. It was submitted that, in such a situation, the impugned
orders deserve to be set aside and the prayer of the petitioners,
seeking eviction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the house,
deserves to be granted. While making submissions in support of
the prayers made in the present petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioners specifically relied upon judgment of learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors. v/s.
Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors., 2022(1) Mh.L.J. 511 and judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Shetty v/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2022(1) Mh.L.J. 279 . It was
specifically emphasized that the Division Bench of this Court in
the said judgment not only confirmed the view adopted by the
learned Single Judge in the case of Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors. v/s.
Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors. (supra), but other judgments of
various learned Single Judges of this Court were taken into
account and confirmed in the light of the object of the Senior
Citizens Act. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition
deserved to be allowed.
11. On the other hand, Ms. Lalita Panchakshari, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that in the
present case, the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act have
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
been triggered in backdrop of the respondent No.2 asserting his
rights in the ancestral properties, including the subject house
property. It was submitted that the moment the respondent No.2
initiated proceedings before the competent civil Court, the
petitioners were provoked by the other siblings into making
imaginary complaints of harassment against the respondent Nos.2
and 3. It was emphasized that respondent No.2 himself is a cancer
patient, which is noted by the tribunal as well as the appellate
authority and that in support of the said assertion, medical
documents have been placed on record before this Court. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2, due to his ailment, is
unable to work and earn, as a consequence of which, his wife i.e.
respondent No.3 is required to be the breadwinner and it is
further brought to the notice of this Court that there are two
daughters of respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the grand-daughters of
the petitioners, who are also residing in the said house property. It
is submitted that the entire controversy has arisen due to the fact
that respondent No.2 has chosen to assert his rights in the family
properties.
12. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no
intention to harass the petitioners, that they have not harassed the
petitioners in any manner and that on the other hand, it is the
petitioners, at the behest of the siblings of respondent No.2, who
have been harassing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their
daughters. It is submitted that when the judgment and decree of
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
the competent civil Court is operating in favour of the respondent
No.2, there in no manner in which the tribunal or the appellate
authority could have passed the order of eviction against the
respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that there can be no
quarrel with the law laid down in the judgments upon which the
learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, but the said
judgments are distinguishable on the facts.
13. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3, as a
daughter-in-law of the petitioners, has a right to reside in the
shared household, which is a right recognized under a special
statute i.e. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act' for short). Reference is
made to the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case
of Ritika Prashant Jasani v/s. Anjana Niranjan Jasani & Ors.,
2022(1) Mh.L.J. 406, to contend that in the case of conflict
between the special statutes, the right of respondent No.3 cannot
be frustrated and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, the petitioners cannot claim eviction of respondent
Nos.2 and 3. On this basis, it is submitted that the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
14. The present case is another unfortunate illustration of
bitterness within the family members, reaching the doors of the
Court, wherein relief is sought on the basis of a special statue
enacted for the welfare of the senior citizens of this Country.
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners are indeed
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
senior citizens and they are entitled to invoke the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act. There can also be no quarrel with the
propositions of law recognized and laid down by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashish Vinod Dalal &
Ors. v/s. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors. (supra) and the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Shetty v/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (supra). The aforesaid judgments have
emphasized upon the object of the Senior Citizens Act,
particularly, for providing a proper mechanism for maintenance
and protection of senior citizens. There are indeed instances where
the children of senior citizens, who have become grownup adults
themselves, have ignored the needs of the senior citizens and apart
from ignoring such needs, on occasions, it is found that they act in
a manner that amounts to harassing the senior citizens. It is to
protect such senior citizens that the Senior Citizens Act has been
enacted and the authorities as well as the Courts are required to
ensure that the said solemn object of the Senior Citizens Act is
achieved.
15. But, each individual case has to be considered on its own
facts. In the present case, the documents on record show that the
petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift dated 6 th September
2014, whereby he gifted rights in the subject household property
to his younger son i.e. the brother of respondent No.2. It is not
disputed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing with the
petitioners in the subject house.
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
16. In this backdrop, on 19th March 2015, the respondent No.2
filed Special Civil Suit No. 459 of 2015 against his own parents
i.e. the petitioners herein and his siblings i.e. the younger brother
and a sister. It was a suit for partition, separate possession,
declaration and perpetual injunction and it proceeded on the basis,
that the subject house property formed part of the ancestral
property. A specific declaration was sought with regard to the
aforesaid gift deed dated 6th September 2014. In the said suit, on
10th January 2017, the competent civil Court at Pune, granted an
order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.2.
17. Thereupon, the said Court framed issues in the light of a
specific stand taken by the petitioners that they had only leasehold
rights in the subject house property. As many as 9 issues were
framed and after the parties led oral and documentary evidence,
the said Court decreed the said suit in favour of the respondent
No.2. The said Court passed its judgment and order on 18 th
March 2024, declaring that the said registered gift deed dated 6 th
September 2014 was void and not binding on respondent No.2. A
further declaration was given that respondent No.2 was having
1/4th share in the said house property with the petitioner No.1 and
the siblings of respondent No.2 having the remaining 1/4 th share
each, with each of one of them entitled to separate possession
thereof. The defendants in the suit, including the petitioners
herein, were restrained by a perpetual injunction from obstructing
the respondent No.2 in use and possession of the said house
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
property. It was also recorded that the parties were at liberty to
file an appropriate application for appointment of Commissioner
to make partition and separation of the suit property, according to
the rights declared in the said judgment and order.
18. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
competent civil Court has pronounced upon the rights of
respondent No.2 and the petitioners in respect of the very same
house property. It is a matter of record that an appeal filed by the
petitioners is pending before the appellate Court at Pune, wherein
arguments are being addressed. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied
that the competent civil Court has held in favour of respondent
No.2 in respect of the said house property.
19. It is to be noted that when the tribunal in the present case
passed its order on 28th June 2023, the aforesaid suit was still
pending, although, the order on the application for temporary
inunction at exhibit 5 was already passed in favour of the
respondent No.2 on 10th January 2017. In fact, the tribunal took
into account the pendency of the suit and the order passed on the
temporary inunction application in favour of the respondent No.2.
But, it cannot be said that the tribunal passed its order by only
taking into account the said aspect of the matter. The reasons
recorded by the tribunal do show that the tribunal was aware
about the rival contentions and the requirements of the Senior
Citizens Act for appropriate order of protection to the senior
citizens. The tribunal also specifically noted that the petitioners/
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
senior citizens had not even prayed for a direction for
maintenance from respondent Nos.2 and 3. After taking into
account the material on record, the tribunal found it fit to partly
allow the application, by directing that the respondent Nos.2 and
3 shall not obstruct the peaceful life and possession of the
petitioners/senior citizens in the house property and that the said
respondents would take care of the petitioners/senior citizens.
20. The appellate authority took into consideration the material
on record and dismissed the appeal by reiterating the directions
given by the tribunal. A perusal of the order of the appellate
authority dated 11th January 2024, shows that the order of the
tribunal as well as the material on record was taken into
consideration and it was found that no case was made for
interference with the order of the tribunal. The appellate authority
recorded its own reasons for reaching the aforesaid conclusion,
which included a reference to the said suit filed by the respondent
No.2 and the orders passed therein.
21. This Court is of the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the
tribunal as well as the appellate authority held in favour of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 simply on the basis of the aforesaid suit
filed by respondent No.2 and the orders passed therein. In fact,
the final judgment and order in the suit was passed after the
appellate authority passed the impugned order on 11 th January
2024.
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
22. This Court has considered the material on record to
examine the allegations made by the petitioners/senior citizens that
the tribunal as well as the appellate authority failed to consider the
material on record in the proper perspective and that the
harassment being caused to the petitioners was ignored, thereby
going against the object of the Senior Citizens Act.
23. The chronology of events is noted herein above, but it
would be appropriate to reiterate the same to understand the
background in which the controversy has arisen between the
parties. The registered gift deed was executed by the petitioner
No.1 in favour of younger brother of the respondent No.2 on 6 th
September 2014. On 19th March 2015, the respondent No.2 filed
the aforesaid suit before the competent civil Court at Pune. The
application under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act was filed
by the petitioners on 30th September 2022. A perusal of the said
application shows that according to the petitioners, they were
being harassed since the year 2015. In fact, a specific reference
was made to the occasions when the petitioners were constrained
to approach the Police. The application shows that it was on 10 th
May 2015 that the petitioners claimed to have approached the
concerned Police Station for the first time. It was further stated
that on 24th November 2019 also they had gone to the said Police
Station. The application then contains the alleged incidents of the
year 2020 to claim that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were physically
and mentally harassing the petitioners. Even if the date on which
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
the petitioners claim to have approached Police Station for the
first time i.e. 10th May 2015, is to be taken into consideration, it is
about two months after respondent No.2 filed the aforesaid suit
on 19th March 2015 before the competent civil Court at Pune. It
appears that the root of the controversy is the assertion of rights
by respondent No.2 in the subject house property, which has led
to triggering of bitterness between the family members. During the
pendency of the aforesaid suit before the competent civil Court at
Pune and the order of temporary injunction being passed in favour
of respondent No.2 on 10th January 2017, the petitioners claim
that they were being continuously harassed by respondent Nos.2
and 3. The order of temporary injunction continued to operate till
the suit was eventually decreed in favour of respondent No.2 on
18th March 2024. Yet, the application under the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act was filed only on 30 th September 2022,
levelling allegations dating back to May 2015. The chronology of
events cannot be ignored and it is in this context that the
pendency of the proceedings before the competent civil Court and
its eventual result has to be taken into consideration.
24. It is not as if institution of proceedings before the civil Court
itself could be a ground to ignore the seriousness of the complaints
made by the petitioners/senior citizens against their own elder son
in the present case, but the aforesaid proceedings before the civil
Court is a relevant factor taken into consideration by the tribunal
as well as the appellate authority.
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
25. While the petitioners/senior citizens claim that in the
evening of their life they are being harassed by their son and
daughter-in-law, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the son and
daughter-in-law claimed that they are being harassed. The
documents on record indeed show that the respondent No.2 is
cancer patient and that there is no denial about the fact that
respondent Nos.2 and 3 have two daughters, who are also residing
in the subject house property. The Court cannot be oblivious of
the needs and requirements of all the members of the family and
while the object of the Senior Citizens Act has to be always kept in
mind, the facts of the individual case need to be appreciated to
consider as to whether reliefs sought by the senior citizens are to
be granted in entirety or not.
26. The focus of the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners in the present petition is to seek an eviction order
against respondent Nos.2 and 3. As noted herein above, there is a
decree of a competent civil Court dated 18 th March 2024
operating in favour of respondent No.2 with regard to his
continuing enjoyment of the house property. It is yet to be upset
by any competent Court and this is a factor that cannot be ignored
while considering the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners. It is also a matter of record that the tribunal as well as
the appellate authority have been alive to the object of the Senior
Citizens Act and therefore, while refusing to grant the order of
eviction against respondent Nos.2 and 3, the said authorities have
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
partly allowed the application. It is specifically directed that
respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take care of the petitioners, who are
senior citizens and that the said respondents shall not obstruct the
petitioners, in any manner, peacefully enjoying their stay in the
subject house property.
27. Thus, the tribunal as well as the appellate authority have
concurrently issued appropriate directions to protect the interests
of the senior citizens i.e. the petitioners herein. It is also indicated
in the orders that in the event, respondent Nos.2 and 3 violate the
specific directions issued to them, appropriate action would be
taken against them, including action under the criminal law.
28. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are
passed on a proper understanding of the controversy between the
parties and the interests of the petitioners/senior citizens, have
been taken into account, while issuing appropriate directions. It is
a different matter that the petitioners have grievance with regard
to the violation of the directions issued by the tribunal, but the
entire focus in the present petition is to obtain an order of eviction
against respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for
such a direction. The remedy of appeal against the judgment and
decree of the competent civil Court has been already availed by
the petitioners and they are free to pursue the same, but in these
proceedings, the petitioners have not able to make out their case
to seek an order of eviction against respondent Nos.2 and 3.
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
29. In that light, reliance placed on judgments in the cases of
Ashish Vinod Dalal & Ors. v/s. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal & Ors.
(supra) and Shweta Shetty v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(supra) cannot take the case of the petitioners any further. There is
substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that the said cases are factually distinguishable from
the present case.
30. In the event, the petitioners have any grievance with regard
to the violation of the specific directions issued by the tribunal,
they are free to approach the authorities, including the Police. In
the event, the petitioners approach the authorities making any
grievance in that regard, the respondent No.1-State, through its
Officers, is directed to ensure that appropriate action is taken
within the framework of the Senior Citizens Act and the
aforementioned Rules framed for the State of Maharashtra.
31. This Court would not comment upon the right of shared
household, additionally agitated on behalf of respondent No.3,
who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, for the reason that
there does not appear to be any specific proceeding initiated by
the said respondent against the petitioners under the provisions of
the DV Act. In any case, there can be no quarrel with the
proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Ritika Prashant Jasani v/s. Anjana Niranjan Jasani &
Ors. (supra), wherein the interplay between the Senior Citizens
Act and the DV Act has been considered. Since this Court is not
bipin prithiani
18-wp-3740.24.doc
inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, a discussion on the
said aspect of the matter is not warranted.
32. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed with the
aforesaid observations.
MANISH PITALE, J.
