SENIOR CITIZEN SHOULD NOT BE TORTURED BY JUNIOR FAMILY MEMBERS....PROTECTION REQUIRED .....THANKS....JUNIORS CAN NOT TORTURE SENIOR CITIZENS.....IN ANY WAY... PEACE SHOULD BE MENTAINED ANY HOW ANY HOW.....OM.😊
The main factor in the case is who is the owner of property. The right of living in the house is given to Son by default since he is son of the senior citizen. The daughter in law accepted proposal to live with her husband. If property belongs to senior citizen I. e. Father in law( FIL) or mother in law(MIL) then FIL OR MIL HAS THE RIGHTS TO MAKE OWN WILL OF THE PROPERTY AND HE HAS GOT THE RIGHT TO ASK THEIR SON TO VACATE THE PROPERTY AND LIVE WHEREVER THEY LIKE SO THAT THEIR DIL SHOULD NOT TORTURE HER FIL AND MIL. IF THERE IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEING DONE BY FIL AND MIL ON DIL EVEN THEN THE SON HAS TO ARRANGE THE ALTERNATE LIVING HOUSE TO KEEP THE PEACE IN HOUSE. IF PROPERTY BELONGS TO SON EVEN THEN HE SHOULD ARRANGE ALTERNATE LIVING SHELTER FOR HIS PARENTS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SENIOR CITIZEN BE HARMED OR TORTURED BY LAW. MAKING VIA MEDIA IN ORDERS TO SAVE SKIN THE JUDGES NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE YOUNG ONE HAS CAPABILITY TO EARN BUT SENIOR CITIZEN IS HELPLESS IF THEY DO NOT HAVE ALTERNATE INCOME.
न्यायालय को इस बात पर विचार करना होगा कि वृद्धावस्था में जीवन जीने के अधिकार को बेटे/बहू के कर्तव्यों के साथ संतुलित किया जाना चाहिए ताकि वरिष्ठ नागरिकों को सर्वोत्तम संभव सुरक्षा और जीवन में सुविधा प्रदान की जा सके।😊
The son when gets married should make his own home if he or his wife is unable to live amicably with his parents. Of course substantial maintenance should be given to his old parents; if not the parents property need not be given to their son. There is also another way of taking a huge loan on the house & surrendering their house after their death to the bank. However I would advise everybody to make adjustments and make some sacrifices & live happily ever after; for the people involved are not enemies but family.
Appreciate your sincere desire to inform all citizens about the impact of two contradicting judgements. Many a time, SC judgements appear mockery as it is observed in this case of Delhi High Court order becoming more relevant. Under any circumstances, senior citizens who are at the evening of their life shouldn't be punished by invoking some baseless provision of law. Well, if the son or DIL have themselves owned the property exclusively, they may try to evict their parents to make home for themselves.
सभी नागरिकों को दो विरोधाभासी निर्णयों के प्रभाव के बारे में सूचित करने की आपकी ईमानदार इच्छा की सराहना करता हूँ। कई बार, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले उपहासपूर्ण लगते हैं जैसा कि दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के इस मामले में देखा गया है कि आदेश अधिक प्रासंगिक हो गया है। किसी भी परिस्थिति में, अपने जीवन के अंतिम पड़ाव पर पहुँच चुके वरिष्ठ नागरिकों को कानून के किसी निराधार प्रावधान का हवाला देकर दंडित नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। खैर, अगर बेटे या बहू के पास खुद संपत्ति का स्वामित्व है, तो वे अपने माता-पिता को बेदखल करके खुद के लिए घर बनाने की कोशिश कर सकते हैं।
All depends on the situation of the case and type of situations that arise from the house and situations in that case rather than generalizing all cases as same It depends on the situations each case by case Until we read through the case fully and situations we can never tell anything
🙏महोदया!🙏वर्तमान समय में उपयोगितावाद चरम पर है। वृद्धजनों की उपेक्षा आम बात हो गई है। जहाँ तक मेरी अपनी मान्यताएँ दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय बहुत सरानीय है। पुत्र और पुत्र वधु का षड्यंत्र स्पष्ट ही नज़र आ रहा है।✒️☝️
सीनियर सिटीजन एक्ट के अनुसार पुत्र और पुत्रवधू को वृद्धावस्था में उसकी सेवा करना का हक होता है लेकिन वृद्धावस्था में पुत्र और पुत्रवधू वृद्धावस्था में सेव नहीं करने पर पुत्र और पुत्रवधू को संपत्ति से बेदखल करना उचित होता है क्योंकि पुत्र पुत्रवधू बुढ़ापा का सहारा माना गया है
The very first point is that senior citizen is citizen by constitution of india. His fundamental right to own the property cannot be violated by any court. Only the parliament by propper majority Cann interfere by natural justice. Eviction of senior citizen Is falls beyond the jurisdiction of any court, may it be supreme court. Supreme court here, has failed to protect the fundamental rights of senior citizen. Any new act clashing with the fundamental rights as per constitution is not acceptable.The supreme court has forgotten this very essential point in giving the said judgement.
अगर पुत्र बधु की हक़ में फैसला होना स्वाभाविक है किउ कि पुत्र बधु सिनियर सिटीजन के तुलना में कम उम्र की होती है और सिनियर सिटीजन के तुलना में ज्यादा लम्बी आयु सीमा तक जिंदा रहकर सरकार को कई चुनाव में कई बार वोट दे सकती हैं और सिनियर सिटीजन अल्प समय के बाद जय श्री राम हो जाएंगे। सिनियर सिटीजन फुटपाथ पर रहे जाएंगे तो खास चर्चा नहीं होगी। कम वयस्क बधु फुटपाथों पर रहने से मिडिया दौरें दौरें कवर करने आ जाएगा। सवाल सरकार पर खड़े होंगे। इसलिए पुत्र बधु की पक्ष में फैसला होना स्वाभाविक है।
It is very difficult to live for senior citizens because of the self-centred mindset of the modern society. Situation is very painful and pathetic when the elders have no other choice but to live with their sons and daughter in laws. A bitter truth of senior citizens. There should be some awareness programs and some consideration from government as they cast their votes.
Why sr.citizens act is not above any law? That is really bad..they will only understand what wrong they did to st.citzens when they will be sr. Citizens..
Meri property par mere putra ya putravadhu ka kaanooni roop se koi adhikar nahi hai. Ye sab kuchh meri ichchha par nirbhar kartaa hai. Ancestors se mili huyi property ki baat nahi kar raha hun.
laws are two ways. All these apply to men also except for domestic violence act rights which are only and only for women. Though women do daily oral domestics violence.
societies should live with love and mutual respect not by rights and legal battles. Only babus policeman and lawyers are enjoying life with collective loot of 15 lac crores every year in India.
Anti hindu, eunuch loving , highly perverted judge ( who proposed to permit marriage between male to male, female to female) is gone now, SC judges mostly are in favour of destroying our faiths, culture, our animals, plants in the name of either existenceless basic structure or fundamental rights. These perverted judges never appreciate the divine will before invoking fu damental rights.
हिंदू विरोधी, हिजड़े पसंद करने वाले, बेहद विकृत जज (जिन्होंने पुरुष से पुरुष, महिला से महिला के बीच विवाह की अनुमति देने का प्रस्ताव रखा था) अब चले गए हैं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जज ज्यादातर अस्तित्वहीन बुनियादी ढांचे या मौलिक अधिकारों के नाम पर हमारी आस्था, संस्कृति, हमारे जानवरों, पौधों को नष्ट करने के पक्ष में हैं। ये विकृत जज मौलिक अधिकारों का हवाला देने से पहले कभी भी ईश्वरीय इच्छा की सराहना नहीं करते।
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
SENIOR CITIZEN SHOULD NOT BE TORTURED BY JUNIOR FAMILY MEMBERS....PROTECTION REQUIRED .....THANKS....JUNIORS CAN NOT TORTURE SENIOR CITIZENS.....IN ANY WAY... PEACE SHOULD BE MENTAINED ANY HOW ANY HOW.....OM.😊
High Court judgement is just & vary fair. Senior citizens have a right to peaceful luving
The main factor in the case is who is the owner of property. The right of living in the house is given to Son by default since he is son of the senior citizen. The daughter in law accepted proposal to live with her husband. If property belongs to senior citizen I. e. Father in law( FIL) or mother in law(MIL) then FIL OR MIL HAS THE RIGHTS TO MAKE OWN WILL OF THE PROPERTY AND HE HAS GOT THE RIGHT TO ASK THEIR SON TO VACATE THE PROPERTY AND LIVE WHEREVER THEY LIKE SO THAT THEIR DIL SHOULD NOT TORTURE HER FIL AND MIL. IF THERE IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEING DONE BY FIL AND MIL ON DIL EVEN THEN THE SON HAS TO ARRANGE THE ALTERNATE LIVING HOUSE TO KEEP THE PEACE IN HOUSE. IF PROPERTY BELONGS TO SON EVEN THEN HE SHOULD ARRANGE ALTERNATE LIVING SHELTER FOR HIS PARENTS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SENIOR CITIZEN BE HARMED OR TORTURED BY LAW. MAKING VIA MEDIA IN ORDERS TO SAVE SKIN THE JUDGES NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE YOUNG ONE HAS CAPABILITY TO EARN BUT SENIOR CITIZEN IS HELPLESS IF THEY DO NOT HAVE ALTERNATE INCOME.
Delhi's high court judgement was apt. I am also a Senior citizen.
I support Delhi High court decesion.
न्यायालय को इस बात पर विचार करना होगा कि वृद्धावस्था में जीवन जीने के अधिकार को बेटे/बहू के कर्तव्यों के साथ संतुलित किया जाना चाहिए ताकि वरिष्ठ नागरिकों को सर्वोत्तम संभव सुरक्षा और जीवन में सुविधा प्रदान की जा सके।😊
The son when gets married should make his own home if he or his wife is unable to live amicably with his parents. Of course substantial maintenance should be given to his old parents; if not the parents property need not be given to their son. There is also another way of taking a huge loan on the house & surrendering their house after their death to the bank. However I would advise everybody to make adjustments and make some sacrifices & live happily ever after; for the people involved are not enemies but family.
Appreciate your sincere desire to inform all citizens about the impact of two contradicting judgements. Many a time, SC judgements appear mockery as it is observed in this case of Delhi High Court order becoming more relevant. Under any circumstances, senior citizens who are at the evening of their life shouldn't be punished by invoking some baseless provision of law. Well, if the son or DIL have themselves owned the property exclusively, they may try to evict their parents to make home for themselves.
सभी नागरिकों को दो विरोधाभासी निर्णयों के प्रभाव के बारे में सूचित करने की आपकी ईमानदार इच्छा की सराहना करता हूँ। कई बार, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले उपहासपूर्ण लगते हैं जैसा कि दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के इस मामले में देखा गया है कि आदेश अधिक प्रासंगिक हो गया है। किसी भी परिस्थिति में, अपने जीवन के अंतिम पड़ाव पर पहुँच चुके वरिष्ठ नागरिकों को कानून के किसी निराधार प्रावधान का हवाला देकर दंडित नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। खैर, अगर बेटे या बहू के पास खुद संपत्ति का स्वामित्व है, तो वे अपने माता-पिता को बेदखल करके खुद के लिए घर बनाने की कोशिश कर सकते हैं।
Delhi Hgh Court Judgment is good😊
Delhi High court judgement is appropriate in this case.
All depends on the situation of the case and type of situations that arise from the house and situations in that case rather than generalizing all cases as same
It depends on the situations each case by case
Until we read through the case fully and situations we can never tell anything
A law must be a protective in nature n support the weaker sections.
🙏महोदया!🙏वर्तमान समय में उपयोगितावाद चरम पर है। वृद्धजनों की उपेक्षा आम बात हो गई है।
जहाँ तक मेरी अपनी मान्यताएँ दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय बहुत सरानीय है। पुत्र और पुत्र वधु का षड्यंत्र स्पष्ट ही नज़र आ रहा है।✒️☝️
there was a judgment of supreme court and several high courts that pending civil suit cannot bar criminal proceedings. I used this first time in 1998
High court judgement is vest and fair.
Delhi High Court was Justified
Bahut wadhia faisala manyog dono kot sai hi lia gaya ,,
Mother is right . She has the right on property . Children should take care of mother
सीनियर सिटीजन एक्ट के अनुसार पुत्र और पुत्रवधू को वृद्धावस्था में उसकी सेवा करना का हक होता है लेकिन वृद्धावस्था में पुत्र और पुत्रवधू वृद्धावस्था में सेव नहीं करने पर पुत्र और पुत्रवधू को संपत्ति से बेदखल करना उचित होता है क्योंकि पुत्र पुत्रवधू बुढ़ापा का सहारा माना गया है
Jai Shree Krishna Jai Hind Mam
Delhi High court decision is correct.
In this case the property was in the name of the mother in law so it is not the question of senior citizens over here
Delhi HC Judgment is very balancing
The very first point is that senior citizen is citizen by constitution of india.
His fundamental right to own the property cannot be violated by any court.
Only the parliament by propper majority Cann interfere by natural justice.
Eviction of senior citizen
Is falls beyond the jurisdiction of any court, may it be supreme court.
Supreme court here, has failed to protect the fundamental rights of senior citizen.
Any new act clashing with the fundamental rights as per constitution is not acceptable.The supreme court has forgotten this very
essential point in giving the said judgement.
अगर पुत्र बधु की हक़ में फैसला होना स्वाभाविक है किउ कि पुत्र बधु सिनियर सिटीजन के तुलना में कम उम्र की होती है और सिनियर सिटीजन के तुलना में ज्यादा लम्बी आयु सीमा तक जिंदा रहकर सरकार को कई चुनाव में कई बार वोट दे सकती हैं और सिनियर सिटीजन अल्प समय के बाद जय श्री राम हो जाएंगे। सिनियर सिटीजन फुटपाथ पर रहे जाएंगे तो खास चर्चा नहीं होगी। कम वयस्क बधु फुटपाथों पर रहने से मिडिया दौरें दौरें कवर करने आ जाएगा। सवाल सरकार पर खड़े होंगे। इसलिए पुत्र बधु की पक्ष में फैसला होना स्वाभाविक है।
वर्तमान समय में उपयोगितावाद चरम पर है। आपका विश्लेषण प्रजातंत्र के लिए प्रासांगिक है।👌✒️
Respected Madam, the Judgement of Hon' ble High Court, Govt. of NCT is genuine. I agree with Hon'ble Delhi High Court
It is very difficult to live for senior citizens because of the self-centred mindset of the modern society. Situation is very painful and pathetic when the elders have no other choice but to live with their sons and daughter in laws. A bitter truth of senior citizens. There should be some awareness programs and some consideration from government as they cast their votes.
HC judgement
Delhi HC order is right. 👍😀
High court.
Owner of the property has the right to it. Henceforth parents should advice the sons to arrange for his own accommodation when he is to marry.
Why sr.citizens act is not above any law? That is really bad..they will only understand what wrong they did to st.citzens when they will be sr. Citizens..
Meri property par mere putra ya putravadhu ka kaanooni roop se koi adhikar nahi hai. Ye sab kuchh meri ichchha par nirbhar kartaa hai. Ancestors se mili huyi property ki baat nahi kar raha hun.
Delhi high court decision is good
Delhi high court judgement is justified
Delhi high court
laws are two ways. All these apply to men also except for domestic violence act rights which are only and only for women. Though women do daily oral domestics violence.
new delhi high court judgement is more right
Delhi highcourt is right
societies should live with love and mutual respect not by rights and legal battles. Only babus policeman and lawyers are enjoying life with collective loot of 15 lac crores every year in India.
Delhi high court order most relevent
Supreme court order
Now he should be punished for anti hindu and anti govt. Judgement.
Anti hindu, eunuch loving , highly perverted judge ( who proposed to permit marriage between male to male, female to female) is gone now, SC judges mostly are in favour of destroying our faiths, culture, our animals, plants in the name of either existenceless basic structure or fundamental rights. These perverted judges never appreciate the divine will before invoking fu damental rights.
हिंदू विरोधी, हिजड़े पसंद करने वाले, बेहद विकृत जज (जिन्होंने पुरुष से पुरुष, महिला से महिला के बीच विवाह की अनुमति देने का प्रस्ताव रखा था) अब चले गए हैं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जज ज्यादातर अस्तित्वहीन बुनियादी ढांचे या मौलिक अधिकारों के नाम पर हमारी आस्था, संस्कृति, हमारे जानवरों, पौधों को नष्ट करने के पक्ष में हैं। ये विकृत जज मौलिक अधिकारों का हवाला देने से पहले कभी भी ईश्वरीय इच्छा की सराहना नहीं करते।
WHAT ABOUT WEST BENGAL RAPE CASE NO MOVEMENT
Suprim court judgement is.not correct in this issue Delhi High court is right
महिलाएं ही आजकल सारे फसाद की जड़ है। यह कानून ने उनको स्वतंत्रता दी है।
Pl give attention to your way of speaking .Although Hindi is perfectly alright but the way you deliver needs to b clear . This is my opinion .
Thanks for sharing your valuable opinion I will keep this in mind... dhanyawad 🙏
Soon ..सनातन justice system will replace..Jai Sri Ram..how come someone don't know the vedas and upanishad decide the future of Bharat??
Bahu ka koi adhikaar nahin banta hai.