As the fate will have it, Shanti Swarup Dewan, a retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, along with his wife Romila Dewan have knocked the doors of the same court for protection from their own son and daughter-in-law. The Dewans have alleged that they are being harassed over property by their son and daughter-in-law. They have also sought special cells to deal with complaints of such persons who are aged and infirm, and left by their progeny.
The elderly couple has moved the court against their own son Suvir Dewan as they are allegedly harassed for a house in Sector 11, Chandigarh.
Justice Dewan, 85, who was elevated as a High Court Judge in 1977 became Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court in October 1989 and retired in December 1989.
The Dewan family has a house in Sector 11 which was purchased by Justice Dewan. He later bought another plot at Panchkula and transferred it in his son Suvir’s name who in turn sold the plot and purchased another with the payment he received and constructed his own house. Though Suvir had his own house he continued to live with his parents. The petitioners have pleaded that the court should issue directions to ensure that Suvir and his wife are shifted out of the Sector 11 house to their own house in Panchkula.
The petition’s scope is enlarged as it also seeks special cells for such persons who are aged and infirm and left by their progeny in the twilight of their lives, the age when parents need the support of their child the most. These special units would deal with complaints of parents and senior citizens, who have been threatened and traumatised by their children and are unable to live a peaceful life in their own properties.
The petition by the elderly Dewans was initially before Justice Rajiv Narain Raina who recused himself. Later, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa heard the case and reserved orders. The Dewans’ counsel Puneet Bali said, “A former Chief Justice and a protector of constitutional rights is now approaching the High Court for the safeguard of his own rights. While runaway couples were being protected, there was no safeguard for traumatized parents.”