A Delhi court has asked a couple to vacate the house owned by the man’s mother following her plea that they were “mentally torturing” her.
The court also asked the Delhi-based couple to pay Rs 8,000 per month to the woman as damages, from the date of filing of the petition till they vacate the house.
Additional District Judge Vinod Yadav asked the West Delhi residents to vacate the house of his mother, a Delhi government school teacher, within a month.
“…it has been held that the plaintiff (the mother) is entitled to the possession of suit property from defendants (son and daughter-in-law) and, as such, the defendants cannot be permitted to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. This issue is also decided in favour of the mother and against the defendants,” the court said.
The mother in her suit said she had built the house at Sitapuri Extension with her earnings in 1982 and allowed her son and daughter-in-law to live with her.
She alleged that she was subjected to mental torture by them and they had taken away her right to lead a life of dignity and honour.
“Rather than serving the mother in her old age and taking care of sisters, the son, in conspiracy with his wife, started harassing his mother and he even went to the extent of beating her,” the woman’s counsel contended before the court.
While the son alleged that “his mother was mentally ill” and was undergoing treatment, the court turned down his plea, saying that “the very fact that the plaintiff has been working as a government teacher even today goes on to establish beyond any doubt that she is mentally fit… Any mother who suffers misbehaviour through her only son would definitely feel depressed. This shows the bent of mind of the defendants.
They appear to be interested in extorting money from the plaintiff. It is clear from the facts of the case that defendants have miserably failed in proving the defence that, through their means, they had raised construction at the first floor of the said property,” the court said.
“On the other hand, there is a categorical averment of the mother, which has not been denied by the defendants to the effect that from 2004 till the beginning of 2012, the son and his wife had been residing elsewhere,” the court said.
“Therefore, I do not find any merit in the defence raised by the defendants in the matter whereas, the plaintiff has been able to prove the facts stated by her in the plaint. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants,” the court said.