Ravi Kanta Nagpal v. District Magistrate, Gurugram And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14050-2019 (O&M) Date of decision-16.01.2023 Smt. Ravi Kanta Nagpal

...Petitioner

Vs.

District Magistrate, Gurugram and another

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

*** MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Smt. Ravi Kanta Nagpal has filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 12.03.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby her application dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-6) under Section 22 The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for eviction of respondent No.2-Pooja Nagpal (daughter-in-law) from residential house i.e. flat No.253, City Cooperative Group Housing Society, Plot No.73, Sector 55, Gurugram, was dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the matrimonial dispute between petitioner's son, namely, Anmol Nagpal and GEETA RANI 2023.01.23 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-14050-2019 (O&M) -2respondent No.2-Pooja Nagpal, has ended by way of a settlement arrived at between the parties and their marriage also stands dissolved on the basis of a mutual consent. In this regard, he has produced the copy of the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by this Court in FAO No.292 of 2016 titled 'Pooja Nagpal Vs. Anmol Nagpal'. He has further stated that pursuant to the statement made by respondent No.2-Pooja Nagpal, she has complied with her undertaking and has vacated the subject property before 18.10.2022. Mr. Chadha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the dissolution of marriage between petitioner's son and respondent No.2 as well as the fact that respondent No.2 has vacated the house. According to him, as far as the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned, the same has become infructuous, but the petitioner may initiate proceedings against her daughter-in-law, who has allegedly taken away some of petitioner's household articles while vacating the house.

Considering the above stands of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. (MANOJ BAJAJ) JUDGE 16.01.2023 geeta Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No GEETA RANI 2023.01.23 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment