Courts have become a last resort when “progeny plays merry hell” into lives of the “old and infirm”, a Delhi Court observed recently when a senior citizen mother sought a restraining order against her son [MMP v. PP].
The Court was hearing a challenge to an order that had allowed the son to use one of the rooms in the house owned by the parents.
The order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma outlined that the parents deserved a peaceful life.
“It cannot be stressed enough that parents, who have toiled and sacrificed in their prime, deserve a peaceful life during their sunset years. It is thus quite tragic if they have to approach a Court of law to ensure that their peace is not disrupted in any manner,” it added.
The Court pointed out that it was devastating, especially when the “anguish” was meted out by their own “kith and kin”.
“Courts have become a last resort when progeny plays merry hell into lives of the old and infirm. Reasons may vary, from intolerance, apathy to sheer avarice. It is the covetous intentions and intemperate conduct of the respondent son that the counsel for the appellant mother sought to highlight during the course of proceedings,” the order highlighted.
The facts placed on record indicated that the mother had, with a “heavy heart”, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) against her son alleging physical and mental abuse on his part.
The son’s counsel, however, termed the relationship as a cordial one.
The Court subsequently considered the statement of his mother, who unequivocally said that the son had caused her a “great deal of anguish”. It also came on record that a dog brought by the son had added to the woes of the senior citizen parents, who suffered from breathing trouble.
“It becomes imperative that a modus vivendi (arrangement for peaceful co-existence) has to be arrived at, lest the situation turns ugly, as the continued presence of the respondent son is ostensibly causing discomfort and alarm in the minds of the parents. The solution albeit a transient one, lies in removing the root cause, namely separating the two warring factions,” the Court noted.
The son was stated to be not physically, mentally or economically disabled to be unable to fend for himself.
“In other words, time is ripe for the fledging to leave the cocoon of his parent’s abode, and to build his own nest. Such a move, in the perception of this Court, will not only bring peace and harmony in the house, but may also impel the respondent to forge a life of dignity, where he traverses the path from being a freeloader to probably a benefactor,” the order held.
Accordingly, the son was directed to vacate the premises within a week from the date of the order on July 12 and was restrained in toto from entering or staying in his parents’ house.