Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
SMT. S. VANITHA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29760 of 2019)
Decided on : 15-12-2020
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 – Sections 17 and 36 – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 – Sections 3, 4 and 23 – Eviction of daughter-in-law from shared household – Provisions of Section 3 of Senior Citizens Act 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household, as under PWDV Act, 2005 – Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act 2007 – Both pieces of legislation are intended to deal with salutary aspects of public welfare and interest – PWDV Act 2005 was intended to deal with problems of domestic violence – Allowing Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within meaning of PWDV Act 2005, would defeat object and purpose which Parliament sought to achieve in enacting latter legislation – Law protecting interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at mercy of their children or relatives – Equally, purpose of PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation – Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. (Paras 20 and 21)
(B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 – Sections 3, 4 and 23 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 – Sections 17 and 36 – Eviction of daughter-in-law from shared household – Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realization – Section 3 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a shared household under Section 17 of PWDV Act 2005 – In the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in present case where suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by law, it would be appropriate for Tribunal constituted under Senior Citizens Act 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing competing claims of parties claiming under PWDV Act, 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007 – This course of action would ensure that common intent of Senior Citizens Act 2007 and PWDV Act 2005- of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of society, is effectively realized. (Para 22)
(C) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 – Sections 3, 4 and 23 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 – Sections 17 and 36 – Eviction of daughter-in-law from shared household – A shared household would have to be interpreted to include residence where appellant had been jointly residing with her husband – Merely because ownership of property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws (Second and Third Respondents) or that her estranged spouse (Fourth respondent) is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive appellant of protection that was envisaged under PWDV Act 2005 – Claim of appellant that premises constitute a shared household within meaning of PWDV Act 2005 would have to be determined by appropriate forum – Claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting appellant in exercise of summary powers entrusted by Senior Citizens Act 2007 – Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of maintenance allowance, before appropriate forum – Appeal allowed with costs quantified at Rs 25,000/- to appellant from private respondents. (Paras 23 and 24)
(D) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Harmonious Construction – In event of two special acts containing non obstante clauses, later law shall typically prevail – In event of a conflict between special Acts, dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over other – Primary effort of interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise. (Para 20)
The legal document discusses the complex interplay between the rights of women in shared households under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the protections afforded to senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The key points are as follows:
The right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be overridden by an eviction order obtained through summary procedures under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) (!) .
Both legislations—PWDV Act, 2005 and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—serve public welfare and are intended to be harmoniously construed. The protections under the PWDV Act, 2005, especially regarding a woman’s right to residence, must be preserved despite the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) (!) .
The definition of "shared household" under the PWDV Act, 2005, is exhaustive and includes households where the woman has lived or currently lives in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or legal interest. This definition extends to households belonging to joint families, whether owned or tenanted (!) (!) (!) .
The enforcement of rights under the PWDV Act, 2005, such as residence orders, is not displaced by the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even when proceedings are initiated under the latter. The remedies under the PWDV Act are supplementary and can be pursued concurrently or subsequently (!) .
The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, primarily aim to provide speedy and inexpensive relief to senior citizens, including maintenance and protection of property. However, these provisions do not automatically confer the authority to order eviction of a woman from her shared household, especially when such eviction would defeat her legal rights under the PWDV Act, 2005 (!) (!) .
In cases where there are conflicting claims, courts and tribunals should adopt a harmonious approach, considering the dominant purpose of each legislation. If a woman claims a right in a shared household, her claim should be examined and protected, and eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, should not be used as a means to defeat her rights (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that rights in law should translate into rights in life only if there is equitable access to their realization. Therefore, legal remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005, remain available and effective, even in the context of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) .
The legal framework encourages the use of appropriate forums to resolve disputes involving rights under both statutes, with tribunals and courts expected to mold reliefs after considering the competing claims, rather than resorting to summary eviction procedures that could undermine the protections granted to women (!) (!) .
In summary, the protections for women’s residence rights under the PWDV Act, 2005, are to be preserved and cannot be bypassed solely through proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Both laws aim to serve the welfare of vulnerable groups and must be interpreted harmoniously to ensure that the rights of women to reside in shared households are upheld alongside the protections for senior citizens.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
| Index | |
| A | Background |
| B | Submissions |
| C | Legislative scheme: Senior Citizens Act 2007 |
| D | A woman’s right of residence: safeguard against domestic violence |
| E | Harmonising competing reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007 |
| F | Summation |
A Background
1. The present dispute arises out of an application filed by the Second and Third respondents against the appellant, who is their daughter-in-law. The Second and Third respondents are the parents of the Fourth respondent, who is the estranged spouse of the appellant. The Second and Third respondents filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 20071[“Senior Citizens Act 2007”], and inter alia, sought the appellant and her daughter?s eviction from a residential house in North Bengaluru2[“suit premises” ].
2. The Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, allowed the application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant unsuccessfully pursued a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Single Judge, and in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 17 September 2019 held that the suit premises belonged to the mother-in-law (the Second respondent) of the appellant and the remedy of the appellant for maintenance and shelter lies only against her estranged husband (the Fourth respondent). The Division Bench upheld the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises before 31 December 2019. Challenging the jurisdiction of the authorities3[The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District] to decree her eviction under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, the appellant has moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. The appellant and the Fourth respondent were married on 30 May 2002. Soon thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. The appellant alleges that she was harassed for dowry and even compelled to institute a suit for partition against her father in 20034[OS 211 of 2003] which she later withdrew, after her spouse allegedly deserted her to be in a relationship with another woman. The subject matter of the controversy is a residential house situated at Gangondonahalli, Dasanapura, Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The land was purchased by the Fourth respondent on 2 May 2002, a few months before the appellant married him. The appellant alleges that her father had financed a portion of this purchase.
4. On 5 October 2006, the Fourth respondent sold the land to his father -the Third respondent. The transaction of sale between the father and the son was for the same consideration of Rs.1.19 lacs, as was paid by the Fourth respondent for the original purchase of the property in 2002. By then, the appellant and the Fourth respondent had a daughter. In 2009, the Fourth respondent instituted a petition for divorce5[MC 22 of 2009] under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nelamangala6[“Trial Judge”]. The Third respondent, following the purchase of the property and after constructing a house, gifted it to his spouse -the Second respondent, on 19 July 2010. Soon thereafter, on 17 August 2010, the Second respondent instituted a suit against the appellant before the JMFC, Nelamangala seeking a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The suit is pending. On 5 December 2013, the petition for divorce was allowed by the Trial Judge and the marriage between the appellant and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
