Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia, is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.1, Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia. The respondents are the petitioner's mother-in-law (respondent No.1), husband (respondent No.2), and brothers-in-law (respondents 3-5). The family resided in a building called 'Joy Sapphire' in Vile Parle, Mumbai, which was owned by the joint family. After redevelopment, a family arrangement dated 16 August 2010 allotted flats to various members: Flat No.101 to respondent No.5, Flat No.201 to respondent No.4, and Flat No.301 to the petitioner's husband (respondent No.2). On 28 January 2019, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 5(1)(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Application No.12 of 2019) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, Suburban District of Mumbai. The application sought appointment of a protection officer and other reliefs. The Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate the flat and pay maintenance. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the daughter-in-law is not a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines 'relative' as any child, grandchild, or other legal heir. Since the petitioner is not a relative, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order against her under Section 5(1). Additionally, the order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Jurisdiction - Definition of 'Relative' - Section 2(d) and Section 5(1) - The daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of 'relative' under Section 2(d) of the Act, which only covers children, grandchildren, and other legal heirs. The Tribunal under Section 5(1) can only pass orders against a 'relative' as defined. Therefore, the order passed against the petitioner (daughter-in-law) was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 3-5)
B) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - The Tribunal passed an order against the petitioner without giving her an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The order was passed ex parte without any notice or hearing to the petitioner. (Para 6)
C) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Scope of Section 5(1) - The Tribunal's power under Section 5(1) is limited to ordering maintenance and protection of senior citizens against their relatives. It cannot pass orders against persons who are not relatives under the Act. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a daughter-in-law is a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and whether the Senior Citizen Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an order against her under Section 5(1) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, Suburban District of Mumbai, under Section 5(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Law Points
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Section 5(1)
- Section 2(d)
- jurisdiction over relatives
- daughter-in-law not a relative under the Act
- natural justice
- right to be heard
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 29
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3509 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019
Mr. Pravin D. Patel a/w Mr. Hemangi V. Kamdar for the Petitioner. Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Amey Patil i/b Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra for Respondent No.1. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia
Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, under Section 5(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order directing her to vacate the flat and pay maintenance.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, daughter-in-law of respondent No.1, was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order passed against her under the Act, contending that she is not a 'relative' under the Act and that the order was passed without hearing her.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, passed an order on an application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, directing the petitioner to vacate the flat and pay maintenance.
Issues
Whether a daughter-in-law is a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?
Whether the Senior Citizen Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an order against a daughter-in-law under Section 5(1) of the Act?
Whether the order passed by the Tribunal without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she is not a 'relative' under Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines 'relative' as any child, grandchild, or other legal heir. The daughter-in-law is not included.
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order against her under Section 5(1) of the Act.
The petitioner submitted that the order was passed without giving her an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The daughter-in-law is not a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which defines 'relative' as any child, grandchild, or other legal heir. Therefore, the Senior Citizen Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order against a daughter-in-law under Section 5(1) of the Act. Additionally, any order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party is violative of principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1 and wife of Respondent No.2.
The application inter alia prayed for appointment of a protection officer.
The daughter-in-law is not a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any order against the petitioner under Section 5(1) of the Act.
The order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Procedural History
On 28 January 2019, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 5(1)(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, Suburban District of Mumbai. The Tribunal passed an order against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Writ Petition (L) No.3509 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 24 February 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Section 5(1), Section 2(d)
