HC reserves order on property dispute between former judge and his son | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 27, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC reserves order on property dispute between former judge and his son

The Punjab and Haryana high court, on Tuesday, reserved its judgment in a property dispute case between former high court chief justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (85), and his advocate son, Suvir Dewan.

chandigarh Updated: Aug 27, 2013 20:21 IST
HT Correspondent

The Punjab and Haryana high court, on Tuesday, reserved its judgment in a property dispute case between former high court chief justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (85), and his advocate son, Suvir Dewan.


The former judge and his wife, Romilla (75), had moved the court citing their "animal existence" in their own house in Sector-11, Chandigarh, because of the alleged torture by their son.

The elderly couple had sought directions from the court for shifting Suvir along with his family from their house in Sector 11-B to Suvir's house in Sector 2, Panchkula.

On the earlier date of hearing, the court had said that it was inclined to relegate both the parties to the civil suit for a direction in the present proceedings confining the occupation of Suvir to only 20% of the Chandigarh house as per the law on Hindu undivided family.

However, during the resumed hearing of the case on Tuesday, former judge's advocate apprised the court that if the petitioner approaches the civil court it would take a long time in disposal of the case.

The court was also informed about the various provisions available under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen's Act, 2007, wherein the sub-divisional magistrates had been declared as maintenance tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon the maintenance.

However, appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Puneet Bali said that the mechanism set up by the Chandigarh administration was improper to address the issues of elderly people.

He also informed the court that though the petitioners had gifted a house to their son in Panchkula, there was also a provision in the Act that he could get back the same, if their son failed to take care of the petitioners.