Snehal Upadhyay-
A Civil Court of Mumbai restrained an animal welfare activist’s family from feeding birds outside their apartment’s window in a residential society on the ground of creating a nuisance for the neighbours.
The suit was filed by Dilip and Meena Shah who were senior citizens living in the society in Mumbai. They wanted a permanent injunction against the defenders Jigisha and Padma Thakore.
The plaintiff stated its grievances that the defendants made a large platform outside their balcony which was just above the balcony of the plaintiff for feeding the birds with grains and water and due to this there were birds dropping food and water over the window sliding and channels which made a bad smell.
They also stated that the grain which was fed upon the birds had insects, which used to enter the house of the plaintiff.
The defendants responded that even if their act was creating a nuisance, they would not stop feeding the birds as it’s not a crime or an illegal act.
The residential society took actions and failed in making the defendants stop feeding and the plaintiffs also tried installing a longer roof over their balconies to avoid the nuisance caused, but the bird ruckus still continued therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit against them.
The Additional Session Judge AH Laddhad observed that bird dropping, bad smell and mumming noise made by the birds can cause the act of nuisance to any ordinary prudent man and also the defendant could have accepted the idea proposed by the society of using commonplace for feeding in order to stop creating such an act but they didn’t.
“No doubt the act of defendants feeding birds and other creatures of nature is a compassionate deed, which is highly appreciable and respectable but at the same time, the care needs to be taken that such action should not cause a nuisance to the human beings, more particularly the neighbours,” said the Court.
Therefore the Court concluded that the defendants were causing a nuisance to neighbours and the judge remarked that it was unfortunate that this “act of kindness” of the defendant, has to beg.
