The Bombay High Court recently restrained the mother of a police constable from executing an order passed by the Thane sub-divisional officer (SDO) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, which directed that the son be evicted from a flat owned by the woman in Thane and also pay a maintenance of Rs 10,000 to her.
The order, while restraining the son and his wife from residing in a flat owned by mother, and continued the woman to live with her daughter in her other flat situated nearby in Thane.
The decision holds significance, as in majority of cases under the said Act, the HC had time and again ordered in favour of elderly parents highlighting the importance of living life with dignity and liberty.
A single bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre on November 6 passed the order on a plea filed by the constable and his wife, through advocate Shubham Misar, seeking that the SDO order from last year be set aside. They also sought an interim stay on the same, pending hearing of the case.
The petitioner submitted that his father was employed with the police department and after his death in 1991, he was employed with the force. In 1992, both his father’s flats was transferred in the mother’s name.
The constable resided with his mother and three sisters in one of the flats till 2015. As one of his sisters came to stay with their mother, he moved to the other flat and carried out repair works worth up to Rs 8 lakh.
He alleged that the sister insisted on selling the two flats, prompting the mother to move an application before the SDO seeking his eviction.
The petitioner said that his mother has been receiving a family pension of nearly
Rs 15,000 after her husband’s demise. He also submitted that the petitioner’s sister, who stays with mother, earns nearly
Rs 30,000 per month from the police department, where she is employed as a Shipai, and therefore both were self-sufficient and did not require maintenance.
In view of this, the constable submitted that he was likely to be dispossessed of the flat where he stayed with his family, and the SDO order cannot be executed as the HC had time and again passed orders barring eviction, dispossession and demolition during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The constable further told the court that the SDO had not dealt with the issue of his mother being in possession of a second flat and the reimbursement she receives towards medical expenses from the police department.
The HC noted that the petitioner has been asked to pay maintenance by the SDO in ignorance of his liabilities of repaying the loan taken from a welfare society to repair the flat and also providing for his wife and two children.
Observing that the SDO order did not deal with the contentions raised by the constable, the bench, while granting interim relief, said: “…respondents (mother and SDO) are restrained from executing the order impugned against the petitioner.”
Court grants bail to vendor booked for not wearing mask
Mumbai: A sessions court granted bail to a 20-year-old vegetable seller who was booked for not wearing mask in public and allegedly obstructing civic officials. The court observed that the “lower strata of society” has suffered a lot due to the Covid-induced lockdown.
According to the prosecution, officials of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had been carrying out a special drive to ensure that masks are being worn by local residents and social distance is being maintained. The FIR stated that on October 31, Jagdisha Kore, a resident of Matunga, who sells vegetables at Shivaji Park in Dadar, was found in public without wearing a mask.
Kore said that he had agreed to pay a fine of Rs 200, but police had claimed that he and another person had gotten into an argument with the civic officials. The prosecution claimed that Kore and the co-accused began threatening the civic officials and attempted to assault them. The officials had then dialled 100 and a police team had arrested the two.
In his bail application submitted to the court through lawyer RF Jaiswal, Kore said that his family depended on his livelihood and the arrest would severely affect them.
“Due to the continuous lockdown, the lower strata of society has suffered a lot and due to poverty, the aforesaid incident might have occurred… No criminal antecedent has been demonstrated against the applicant,” the court said. ENS
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines