PREMSHANKAR SATYARTHI vs SMT. LAXMI BAI SATYARTHI

1

CGHC010014642024 2026:CGHC:38917
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 566 of 2024
1 - Premshankar Satyarthi Son Of Late Jagatpal Satyarthi Aged About
54 Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y.
Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Sapna Satyarthi Wife Of Premshankar Satyarthi Aged About 47
Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y.
Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Laxmi Bai Satyarthi Wife Of Late Jagatpal Satyarthi Aged About
77 Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y.
Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
02.09.2026
1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

2
“0.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 12-10-2023
(Annexure P-1) passed in Appeal Case
No.02/B-121/year-2022-23.
10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may
also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners,
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Appellate
Tribunal/Collector, affirming the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by
the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is illegal, contrary to the
provisions of the Act and has been passed in a summary and non-
speaking manner without properly considering the issues raised
by the petitioners. He submits that the application preferred by the
respondent/mother seeking eviction of the petitioners from the
dwelling house is not maintainable under the Act, particularly
against petitioner No.2, who is the daughter-in-law, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v.
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others ,
reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 . It is further submitted that
although the Maintenance Tribunal has certain powers of a Civil
Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, no evidence was recorded
and the matter was decided in a summary manner without
affording proper opportunity to the petitioners. Learned counsel
further submits that the allegations made by the respondent are

3
false and motivated by the influence of her younger son,
Harishankar, and that the petitioners are residing in the same
dwelling house along with the respondent and their family. He
therefore submits that the orders passed by both the learned
Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are
unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent
is the registered owner of the house bearing Khasra Nos. 267/430
and 267/433 situated at Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai-3,
District Durg, and the revenue records also reflect her exclusive
ownership over the said property. He submits that petitioner No.1
is the son and petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the
respondent, and that the petitioners have been residing separately
in a portion of the house since 2014. It is further submitted that
petitioner No.1, without the knowledge or consent of the
respondent, fraudulently obtained a loan by using the said
property, pursuant to which an FIR was registered against him for
offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC, and the
respondent has also been subjected to recovery proceedings by
the bank, causing her financial hardship. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioners have subjected the respondent to harassment
and abuse and have no right, title or interest in the property, which
was purchased by the respondent from her own sources. He
further submits that the respondent had therefore rightly
approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of the

4
petitioners, which allowed her application vide order dated
28.02.2022, and the said order has subsequently been affirmed
by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector vide order dated
12.10.2023. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners have
no legally sustainable ground for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the mother of petitioner
No.1 and mother-in-law of petitioner No.2. The respondent claims
ownership over the house in question and has approached the
Maintenance Tribunal alleging harassment and ill-treatment at the
hands of the petitioners. The Maintenance Tribunal, upon
consideration of the material placed before it, allowed the
application preferred by the respondent vide order dated
28.02.2022, directing eviction of the petitioners from the subject
premises. The said order has thereafter been affirmed by the
learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector vide the impugned order
dated 12.10.2023.
6. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the Maintenance
Tribunal could not have granted the relief of eviction and that the
proceedings were decided in a summary manner without
recording oral evidence. However, merely because the Tribunal

5
has not recorded elaborate oral evidence, the orders cannot be
interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the
petitioners have failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to
them or any perversity in the findings recorded by the statutory
authorities. The Tribunal is empowered under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to adopt a
summary procedure, and the petitioners have not been able to
establish that the procedure adopted has resulted in failure of
justice.
7. So far as reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 730 , is
concerned, the said judgment does not lay down an absolute
prohibition against consideration of an application seeking eviction
of a daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Act of 2007. The
applicability of the said decision depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and the nature of the competing
rights claimed by the parties. In the present case, the petitioners
have failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in
the subject property so as to warrant interference with the orders
passed by the statutory authorities.
8. This Court, in WPC No. 6077 of 2024 (Devendra Khanna and
Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) , has held that the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect the life, property,

6
dignity and peaceful residence of senior citizens and, therefore,
the provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted liberally
and purposively. It has further been held that the jurisdiction of the
Maintenance Tribunal is not confined merely to grant of monetary
maintenance, but extends to issuing such appropriate and
consequential directions, including eviction of children or relatives,
as may be necessary to ensure the protection, welfare and
peaceful living of the senior citizen.
9. In the present case, it is also significant that the respondent is an
aged mother and has specifically alleged harassment and ill-
treatment by the petitioners. The statutory authorities, after
considering the material available before them, have found the
respondent entitled to the relief sought by her. This Court, while
exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is not sitting as an appellate authority over such findings
and cannot substitute its own view merely because another view
may be possible. No jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of
principles of natural justice or manifest illegality in the impugned
order has been demonstrated by the petitioners.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.10.2023
passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector in Appeal Case
No.02/B-121/Year 2022-23, affirming the order dated 28.02.2022
passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

7
11. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed .
12. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha