IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1990 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011. Kanil Kumar & others --Appellants Versus Chandigarh Administration & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the appellants. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This L.P.A arises out of an order dated 12.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2011. Circumstances leading to the filing of the present appeal are being noticed hereinafter. The appellants before us and the respondent no.2 are the sons of Smt. Om Kumari, whereas respondent no.3 is her daughter-in-law and wife of respondent no.2. Admittedly, Smt. Om Kumari is residing with respondents no.2 and 3 in their house at Chandigarh. Appellants, who are other three sons apart from respondent no.2 are in litigation with respondents no.2 and 3 in respect to property before the competent courts. The appellants, however, filed a writ petition, referred to above before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 seeking a direction for meeting their mother Smt. Om Kumari, who is alleged to be detained by respondents no.2 and 3 in their house. It was alleged that respondents no.2 and 3 have restrained Smt. Om Kumari resulting in total cut off from the appellants herein. The appellants also sought a direction in the nature of LPA No. 1990 of 2011 -2- Habeas Corpus for a direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to hand over the custody of the old mother and hand over the entire moveable assets of their mother to them. Since there was allegation of alleged unlawful detention of Smt. Om Kumari, the Writ Court in its wisdom directed the production of Smt. Om Kumari before the Court. Smt. Om Kumari appeared before the Court on a wheel chair. She expressed her desire to continue to live with her daughter-in-law and son i.e respondents no.2 and 3. She also made a statement before the Court that the appellants (writ petitioners) can always meet her as and when they so desire. Smt. Om Kumari being 82 years of age and on the basis of her statement made before the Court, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition having been rendered infructuous. As regards the prayer of the appellants that they may be allowed to visit their mother, while recording the statement of Smt. Om Kumari that they are at liberty to meet her, the Writ Court made certain observations in the impugned judgement. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge, appellants are facing difficulty to meet their mother. It is further contended that respondents no.2 and 3 are not allowing the appellants to meet their mother and thus a direction be issued that the appellants can meet their mother as and when they so desire. In so far as the second contention is concerned, in view of the categorical statement of Smt. Om Kumari that the appellants are at liberty to meet her, we are of the opinion that no further directions are required. Otherwise also, it is a matter between a mother and her sons and in absence of there being any statutory provision enabling this Court to issue such appropriate directions, we refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction in LPA No. 1990 of 2011 -3- respect to a purely social problem for which the parties have to find a solution amicably or otherwise. We have found that the apprehension of the appellants regarding the observations made by learned Single Judge are well founded. Learned Single Judge has made following observations in regard to the prayer of the appellants for meeting their mother:- “ Whether this Court in a delicate family relationship can issue such direction is one of the issues which this Court has to answer? Whether the petitioners being sons aged 62 years, 55 years and 61 years under the garb of orders of this Court should visit their mother, who is staying with another son is another issue to be decided especially when parties are embroiled in fierce litigation. Court is of the view that the old lady Smt.Om Kumari, aged about 82 years, who is not having good health and has come to the Court in a wheel chair is entitled to lead her life peacefully, whereas the sons, who are fighting over the property and are litigating in every possible forum on the pretext visit each time, are bound to cause trouble and friction for the old lady, therefore, possibility that peace of mind of old lady will be disturbed cannot be ruled out. In such a delicate family relationship this Court shall refrain to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly when this Court is of the view that right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of alleged detenue old lady Smt.Om Kumari is in no way affected as she is not unlawfully detained and is residing with her one son and daughter-in-law according to her own free will. Petitioners, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum or seek community help for resolution of the dispute which essentially is a family affair. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of claim raised by the parties regarding inter se property dispute. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, as directions prayed for cannot be issued, while exercising writ jurisdiction.” The above observations definitely provide an opportunity to the respondents no.2 and 3 to prevent the appellants from meeting their mother. LPA No. 1990 of 2011 -4- We are of the considered view that these observations were not necessary in passing the impugned order. The relationship between the mother and the sons and brothers amongst themselves need to be maintained keeping in view the social fiber in our social set up. Thus, we feel that these observations should not come in the way of the appellants to visit their mother, if, they so desire and the mother permits. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 31.10.2011. lucky