Delhi High Court
Prashant Chauhan vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & ... on 14 January, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 347/2016 & C.M.No.1408/2016
PRASHANT CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mohit Gupta with Mr.Rajbir
Malik, Advocates.
versus
TRIBUNAL (UNDER MAINTENANCE & WELFARE OF THE
PARENTS & SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007) (CENTRAL
DISTRICT) AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur with Ms.Tanuja,
Advocates for R-1.
% Date of Decision: 14th January, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 16th December, 2015 passed by respondent no. 1-Tribunal in
Case no. 107/Venu Chauhan/Central/2015/1338-40 in the case titled as
"Smt. Venu Chauhan & Ors. vs Mr. Prashant Chauhan" whereby the
petitioner has been directed to provide two rooms, bathroom, kitchen at
195/A, Phase-II, Panditwadi, Lane No.8, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun to his
parents namely respondent nos. 2 and 3 within four weeks. The
petitioner has also been directed to return the jewellery, clothes and
other household articles of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 which are in
petitioner‟s possession.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no. 1-
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned
order inasmuch as it failed to appreciate that respondent nos. 2 and 3
had already filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. He submits that
Section 12 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 [for short "Act, 2007"] prohibits consideration of a
maintenance claim under the Act, 2007 if a claim for maintenance has
already been filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C.
3. He also submits that no power has been bestowed upon the
respondent no. 1-Tribunal to hand over possession of a property to any
applicant before it.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that no relief
of maintenance has been given by the respondent no.1-Tribunal in view
of the bar contained in Section 12 of Act, 2007.
5. Further this Court is not an appellate court of the respondent
no. 1-Tribunal.
6. It is settled law that petitioner is entitled to relief in a writ
proceeding only if he approaches this Court with clean hands.
7. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that the petitioner on one of
the hearings before the Tribunal had an altercation with his parents just
outside the court room and threatened to kill them and had even
brandished his revolver. The relevant portion of the order of the
Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"On one of the date of hearing on 28.07.2015, while the
parties were sitting outside the tribunal room, the
respondent had an altercation with the petitioners,
threatened to kill them and brandished his revolver at
them."
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
aforesaid allegations have been found to be false by the Investigating
Officer. However, there is no such specific ground in the entire
petition. Ground „M‟ of the petition relied upon by the learned counsel
for petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"M. Because the Learned Tribunal miserably failed to
appreciate that the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been in the
habit of making false & frivolous allegations against the
Petitioner and such allegations have also found to be untrue in
the investigations by the police."
9. In the opinion of this Court, it is a general and vague ground.
Since the aforesaid fact has been specifically referred to by the
Members of the Tribunal in their order, this Court gives credence to
their views rather than believe a general and vague ground.
10. Consequently, the present writ petition along with the
application is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 14, 2016
KA
