Bombay High Court: G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an ordeal of a senior citizen who would be soon in her nineties and was subjected to harassment by her son and grandson due to which she desired to end her life.
Court remarked that,
Looking at this case, one would surely perceive the perishing and deterioration of the family and societal values inherent in our culture, beliefs, ideals and traditions that parents and elders are to be treated with highest respect, love and empathy.
It is so disheartening that at such old age when the only expectation of a senior citizen, from the near and dear ones is of care, concern, affection and love, instead, what has been returned is harassment, wretchedness, suffering and abuse.
Background
Respondent 1 (Grandmother) who was 89 years old defended herself against her adamant grandson and her own son in proceedings initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Grandmother had initially approached the Senior Citizen’s Tribunal initially claiming the maintenance.
She submitted that she was scared of her son as he was using all pressure tactics to make sure that she gives away all the assets to him, which were standing in her name and in the name of her late spouse. Further, she pleaded that her son and grandson along with their spouses entered her house, after which continued violence and pressure were created in order to grab the assets which were in her name and in her late husband’s name and not to give any share to her two daughters who also had equal shares in the estate of the grandmother and that of her deceased husband.
The grandmother stated that when she refused to succumb to such pressures and persistence of Jayesh to transfer all the assets in his name, he started behaving violently, which caused her to leave her own flat and stay with one of her daughters. Even after she left her house, the behaviour of her son continued to remain violent, and he started causing distress not only to her life but also to her married daughters.
In view of the above, respondent 1 decided that she would go back to her own house so that her son would not disturb the family members of any of her daughters.
Further, in another petitioner, respondent 1’s grandson took an extremely hard adversarial position asserting his rights more than what her son could assert.
Tribunal had given its decision in favour of the grandmother while giving her the possession of the said house and evicting the son and grandson from the said property.
On being aggrieved by the Tribunals’ decision, both the son and grandson have approached this Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court noted the stand of the son who stated that he has no objection in vacating the flat, to which the Court expressed that it is a fair stand, and it reflects a relisation on the part of the son that he would not have any legal right when the flat belonged to his mother. Though the grandson still asserted the claim on the basis of a purported Will of his grandfather to claim that the said flat was bequeathed to him.
What did the grandson say with respect to the property?
He admitted the fact that the flat belonged to his grandmother, however, the said flat was bought by his grandfather in his grandmother’s name since she had no source of income, hence his grandfather was the real owner who had bequeathed the flat to him by the purported Will and hence he had become the owner of the flat. However, he made a charitable statement that he would not mind if the grandmother decided to stay with him.
Whether Abhimanyu (Grandson) on the purported Will of his grandfather can refuse to vacate the flat in question?
In Court’s opinion answer would be negative.
Reasons:
- Respondent 1-grandmother was admittedly the owner of the flat in question, the share certificate in relation to the said flat stood in her name.
- This flat was continuously reflected in her income-tax returns as her asset. She is also paying the maintenance towards the said flat.
- She categorically stated not only in her affidavit before the tribunal but also in the affidavit filed before this Court, that she is the sole owner of the said flat.
- She also submitted that her grandson along with other family members, since the demise of her husband was taking all possible steps to usurp all her properties which were worth about 20 Crores.
- By public notice, her husband had disowned her son.
- She has set out repeated events of physical harassment and mental torture which went to such an extent that she attempted to commit suicide.
It was thus clear, that if Abhimanyu intended to assert any right on the flat in question on the basis of any Will of his grandfather, and more particularly, when such will was admittedly not probated, when the parties were within the jurisdiction of this Court, Abhimanyu could not have asserted any right to retain possession or occupation of the grandmother’s flat which independently belonged to her as an owner, which even Abhimanyu does not deny, except for the Will, which in any case are future rights to be established in appropriate adjudication.
Classic case where son Jayesh and grandson Abhimanyu have left no stone unturned to make life of the grandmother a living hell.
Greed of Property
The Bench further expressed that,
Courts have witnessed senior citizens knocking the doors of the Courts throughout the country, praying for reliefs under the Act. It is seen that when such senior citizens have property and when they become physically, psychologically and mentally weak and dependent and or they are in ill health, in such helpless position, the torture, harassment and depravement to them, from self-centered relatives and family members commences so as to grab their property.
While concluding the decision, Bench parted stating that,
“…with a hope that wiser sense would prevail on the petitioners and they would show empathy and mercy towards the grandmother so that she is not required to physically visit any Court as she did for the present proceedings and toil any further.”
Directing the petitioners to vacate the grandmother’s flat within 10 days, Court dismissed the petition. [Abhimanyu Jayesh Jhaveri v. Nirmala Dharmadas Jhaveri, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5861, decided on 17-12-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
Mr Kishor S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/4650/2021.
Mr Amit Sale, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/6916/2021.
Mr Hiral Thakkar i/b. Ms. Vimal Sanghavi, Advocate for the Respondent.
