- (1.) THIS habeas corpus petition was filed by Smt.Narayani wife of Gopi Ram stating that she is the grand daughter of Smt.Dhanni Devi widow of late Smt.Ram Chandraji. She has stated that she is the daughter of the only son of Ramchandra Meena and Dhanni Devi namely Ram Swaroop. It is the case of the petitioner that both Ramchandra Meena and his son Ram Swaroop have died. The petitioner case is that Smt.Dhanni Devi widow of Shri Ramchandra Meena has been detained by the respondent No.4 Madholal and his family members in her house and she is not allowed to move freely and even to visit the petitioner of her own free will. It was submitted that Smt.Dhanni Devi is an old aged lady, infirm and unable to look after herself. It was stated that the detenue Smt.Dhanni Devi is in the unlawful confinement in her own house at the hands of the respondent No.4 and his family members.
(2.) WE issued notice to the respondents and directed learned counsel for the State to produce the detenue before the court. In pursuance of our order dated 25.04.2012 Smt.Dhanni Devi has been produced before the court by Mr.Chauthmal, Sub Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur Metro and Ms.Priya Sharma, Lady Constable (Belt No.8028). From the side of the respondent No.4-Smt.Tulsi Devi wife of Madholal and two sons of Madholal namely Ramakant and Arjun are present. Smt.Narayani Devi, the petitioner is also present. We directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court to record the statement of Smt.Dhanni Devi, the detenue, so that this court may be in a position to ascertain her side of the story and pass necessary orders. Smt.Dhanni Devi has deposed as follows before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial):- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Smt.Tulsi and her two sons namely Ramakant and Arjun both son of respondent No.4-Madholal informed this court that they had invested some amount in the construction of the house in which Smt.Dhanni Devi is residing. Smt.Tulsi, Ramakant and Arjun informed the court that they are in possession of four rooms in the house of Smt.Dhanni Devi and Smt.Dhanni Devi is residing in two rooms at present. Smt.Tulsi wife of Madholal, Ramakant and Arjun son of Madholal-respondent No.4 have undertaken before this court that they would vacate the four rooms which are in their possession on or before 31.10.2012 and handover the vacant possession of the same to Smt.Dhanni Devi. In view of the statements made by Smt.Dhanni Devi hereinabove, the petitioner Smt.Narayani and her husband and family members are permitted to reside with Smt.Dhanni Devi in the two rooms which are in her possession and the respondent No.4 and his family members would not in any manner obstruct the petitioner and her family members from residing with Smt.Dhanni Devi or visiting her or taking Smt.Dhanni Devi to her place, in case Smt.Dhanni Devi wishes to accompany the petitioner Smt.Narayani. There is an apprehension that between the petitioner-Smt.Narayani and her family members and the respondent No.4-Madholal and his family members there may be some dispute on account of succession or inheritance of the property, as there are rival claims which we do not intend to go into leaving the parties to litigate the matter independently as the question of succession is premature and this order which has been passed today shall not come in the way of any of the parties and they shall be free to litigate their rights in court and the court would be free to decide the rights of the parties independently without being influenced by this order, on the basis of the material adduced in evidence in trial. We would also direct that the parties namely the petitioner Smt.Narayani and her family members and the respondent No.4 Madholal and his family members including his wife Smt.Tulsi and two sons Ramakant and Arjun who are present in person in court shall maintain peace and good behaviour and shall not in any manner create law and order situation. The District Magistrate may for this purpose issue necessary orders, if necessary.
(3.) UNDER the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 the State Government under Section 32 thereof has framed the Government of Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010 which have been notified in the official gazette dated 18.06.2010. UNDER sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 it has been provided that they shall come into force from the date of their notification in the official gazette. Under Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010 framed by the Government of Rajasthan a duty has been cast upon the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of Senior Citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010 so far as relevant for the purposes of this case reads as follows:- "20. Duties and powers of the District Magistrate.- (1)The District Magistrate shall perform the duties and exercise the powers mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out in his district. (2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to,- (i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity; (3) With a view to performing the duties mentioned in sub-rule (2), the District Magistrate shall be competent to issue, such directions, not inconsistent with the Act, these rules, and general guidelines of the State Government, as may be necessary, to any concerned government or statutory agency or body working in the district, and especially to the following- (a) Officers of the State Government in the Police, Health and Publicity Departments, and the department dealing with welfare of senior citizens; (b) Maintenance Tribunals and Conciliation Officers; (c) Panchayats and Municipalities; and (d) Educational institutions. (4)xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) In case of a danger to life or property of a senior citizen, it shall be the duty of the District Magistrate or an officer subordinate to him duly authorized to protect the life and property of such senior citizen. (6) In case a senior citizen requires protection or is destitute it shall be the duty of the District Magistrate or the officer subordinate to him duly authorized to provide shelter in an Old Age Home being run by the State Government or Non Government Organisation. (7) The District Magistrate or an officer subordinate to him shall also make, suitable arrangements for medical care for abandoned and indigent senior citizen in case of emergency. (8) A senior citizen shall be considered "indigent" under Sec.19 if his monthly income is less than Rs.1500/-." Apart from the above, Rule 21 of the Rules of 2010 also provide the duties which are enjoined on the police officer within whose jurisdiction the Senior Citizen may be residing. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2010 is a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that Senior Citizen residing within the jurisdiction of the police officer referred to in Rule 21 are given adequate protection and it shall be the duty of police officer concerned that no harm is caused to the senior citizen as referred to in Rule 21. ;