Shraddha Mangesh Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Social Justice And Special Assistance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2870 OF 2024 Shraddha Mangesh Chavan & ors.

.Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Special Assistance & ors.

.Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 6339 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2870 OF 2024 Shraddha Mangesh Chavan & ors.

.Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Special Assistance & ors.

.Respondents Mr. Kunal M. Patel, Advocate, for the Petitioners Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Ms. Kalyani Mangave, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3 Ms. Mohini A. Sharma i/b. Mr. Rahul Salve, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4 _____________________________________________________________

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE:

14.06.2024 P. C.

1.

Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seek time to file affidavit-in-reply.

2.

Prima facie it is clear that the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Page No.1

are initiated with an oblique purpose against the Petitioners by the Respondent No.3, mother-in-law of the Petitioner No.1. 3.

The position on record shows that a matrimonial dispute is pending before the Family Court, Mumbai between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.4 i.e. daughter-in-law and son resepctively of Respondent No.3. Even Petitioner No.1 has also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Appeal is pending in the said proceedings. It is also required to be noted that the premises in question is consisting of two separate parts - one on the ground and another on the first floor. It is an admitted position that the first floor is being used by Respondent No.3. At this stage, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 states that in fact, the Respondent No.3 is not residing on the first floor and that she has rented it out and she is staying at some other premises. In any case, it is an admitted position that Petitioner No.1 i.e. daughterin-law is residing on the ground floor. 4.

If the mother-in-law is not residing in the said premises and that she is earning a substantial income by renting it out the first floor premises then the entire basis of the impugned order of eviction passed, wherein it is observed that Respondent No.3 is being harassed by the Petitoner No.1 i.e. daughter-in-law, as both of them are residing in the same premises is not valid. It appears that the Respondent No. 3 has not disclosed to the Tribunal the said aspect. 5.

The material on record clearly shows that the proceedings have Page No.2

been filed with a mala fide purpose of evicting the daughter-in-law from the premises in question.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in S. Vanitha v. Commr. 1. 7.

Accordingly, arguable questions are raised.

8.

Rule.

9.

There shall be ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) till further orders.

10.

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to file Affidavit-in-replies on or before 05.07.2024. Re-joinder, if any, to be filed on or before 12.07.2024.

11.

Stand over to 19.07.2024.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 1 (2021) 15 SCC 730 Page No.3