Bombay HC orders son, his family to vacate in 20 days flat where father resides

MUMBAI: Upholding an order of a senior citizens tribunal, the Bombay high court has ordered a man and his family to vacate a flat in which his father resides in an SRA building in Worli.
"The petitioners are to remove themselves...within a period of 20 days from today," said Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale on April 13.
They rejected a petition by the daughter-in-law, two teenage grandchildren and the son that challenged an August 2021 order of the tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
The father's complaint to the tribunal said the son married in May 2004, and lived elsewhere. The parents and other siblings stayed in a room owned by the mother. In May 2010, the father gave the son a flat in Mumbra and Rs 1.5 lakh towards his share. After redevelopment, the mother was allotted a rehab flat. She died in June 2019. Thereafter, the son and his family barged into the flat and began residing there. They harassed and threatened the father (72) and two unmarried daughters living with him. But the son claimed he was a co-heir of his late mother and has equal share in her flat.
The judges said the tribunal carefully considered rival claims. While petitioners' advocates Aditya Chitale and Prathmesh Bhosale argued that there are no allegations against the daughter-in-law and grandchildren, the judges said they are the son's "family members." Further, that the daughter-in-law "by no means is an innocent bystander nor is she proactively protecting" her father-in-law. She had made a lengthy police complaint. "Even a cursory look at that complaint indicates that the entire struggle is about the property, namely, the rehab flat," said the judges, adding it mentioned that she and her children lived elsewhere.
The judges noted the tribunal's finding that the flat was allotted to the mother. The tribunal had also said both parties should arrive at some amicable solution, but in the meantime, allowed the father's plea and directed the son to vacate the flat within 60 days. "The impugned order, in our view, is unexceptionable. It is not disproportionate in what it orders or seeks to do. It correctly balances the competing equities," they added.
The judges did not accept the argument that it was a shared household as nothing was shown that the petitioners resided there. They said "a mere statement is made across the bar" and section 17 (Right to reside in a shared household) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is invoked "as if to suggest some sort of permanent right" vests in the daughter-in-law and her children.
They wondered whether the son was now trying to "piggy-back" on some right being claimed by his wife. That could be incongruous, because at the same time, it is asserted that there is no case or allegation against her, they added. Concluding that there is "no merit" in the petition, the judges said, "The order is to be implemented without delay."