The Rajasthan High Court has held that daughters equally responsible for elderly care and abandonment cases against daughters-in-law under Senior Citizens Act is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali has observed that it is not a case of abandonment of a senior citizen by the daughter-in-law. The daughter of the senior citizen is equally responsible for taking care of her mother. Thus, no offence under Section 24 of the Act of 2007 is made out against the daughter-in-law.
Background
The respondent, Amina Paliwala got registered an FIR against the petitioner, daughter-in-law and her daughter (who happens to be daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the complainant respectively) and one unknown person stating inter alia that she is an old aged lady. She lives with her son, who is suffering from critical disease. Her daughter got conducted his surgery.
It is alleged that the daughter-in-law and her daughter assault and abuse her and her ailing son. They wish to kill her in order to grab the entire property. The petitioner and her daughter come to her house with an unknown person, who has a vehicle bearing registration No.HR3610179 and this person misbehaves with them, abuses them and threatens to leave the house.
The accused persons threatens to implicate the complainant and her son in false criminal case. They are not taking care of their ailing husband and father and rather abusing and intimidating her. It is further submitted in the FIR that the possession of the house may be provided to her. After registration of the FIR, the police conducted usual investigation and filed a charge-sheet only against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Act of 2007, whereas her daughter and the unknown accused have been exonerated. ACJM, Udaipur has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the charges.
Arguments
The petitioner daughter-in-law contended that the FIR as well as the charge-sheet does not disclose any offence. The FIR has been lodged to harass the petitioner and her daughters and with the ulterior motive of grabbing the entire property. So far as the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the complainant has failed to show any criminal intimidation, which may alarm her in any way. It is rather the petitioner who is the victim of criminal intimidation at the hands of the complainant, who intends to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate rights, i.e. of taking care of her ailing husband and of the property earned by him.
For the sake of arguments, even if the contents of the FIR are accepted on the face of it, merely hurling abuses and simple outbursts cannot constitute the ingredients essential for making out a case under Section 503 of the IPC. So far as the offence under Section 24 of the Act of 2007 is concerned, it is submitted that complainant herself is having the control over the entire property and she is wilfully living with her daughter and thus, she cannot be claimed to be abandoned. Furthermore, she herself is admitted that she is living with her son and her daughter is taking care of them, as such, no case for offence under Section 24 of the Senior Citizen Act of 2007 is made out.
The senior citizen argued that the miscellaneous petition is not maintainable as the petitioner can raise all the grounds before the trial court at appropriate stage. A bare perusal of the FIR discloses cognizable offence committed by the petitioner. She threatened the complainant, who is old aged lady, and her son, who was ailing with critical disease, to implicate them in the false case if they did not give up the property, which is a clear case of criminal intimidation alarming the petitioner and her son, thus, the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is made out. The respondent complainant, who is a senior citizen, has to live with her daughter and has to take care of her ailing son makes it abundantly clear that she has been abandoned and left without any care and protection, thus, it is clear violation of Section 24 of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Conclusion
The court held that the petitioner/daughter-in-law herself is a widow and single mother of three daughters. Section 24 of the Act of 2007 deals with the offense of exposing and abandoning a senior citizen. It outlines the penalties for individuals who, while having a responsibility to care for a senior citizen, leave them in a place with the intention of abandoning them. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the respondent/senior citizen was wilfully living with her daughter, which was fortified by the report dated
09.04.2023 forwarded by the SHO, Police Statioon Amba Mata, Udaipur to the Office of the Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in connection with D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.74/2023, wherein he has mentioned that the senior citizen and her daughter Malika Pali were living in separate house and Malika Pali was taking care of them. Thus, it is not a case of abandonment of a senior citizen.
The court held that ingredients essential to make out the offences under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are not present in the case at hand. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR registered at the Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur and all the proceedings emanating therefrom including the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, District Udaipur are quashed and set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Zehra Paliwala Versus State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4515/2024
Date: 20/05/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Amit Sharma
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Ravindra Singh, Deepika Purohit
Read More: Govt to Launch New Credit Guarantee Scheme for Export-Focused MSMEs by September
