The interplay between the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act necessitates that claims to residence in a shared household under the DV Act cannot be overridden by eviction orders based on the Senior Citizens Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging Order dated 27 October 2020 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT , 2007, by which the Tribunal has directed Petitioner and her husband (Respondent No.2) to vacate the possession of the premises comprising of three rooms on ground floor of the structure in question. The Order of Maintenance Tribunal was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by Order dated 5 March 2021, which is also the subject matter of present Petition.

2. There is no dispute to the position that the structure in which the concerned premises, comprising of three rooms are located, belongs to Respondent No.1 who is the father-in-law of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 6 June 2015 and started living in a joint family in the house of Respondent No.1-father-in-law. Respondent No.3 is the brother-in-law of Petitioner No.1. The structure comprising of ground floor plus two upper floors and it appears that Petitioner No.1 and her husband resided together in the three rooms located on the ground floor of the structure. On 13 May 2016, a daughter (Petitioner No.2) was born to the couple. It appears that there is marital discord between Petitioner No.1 and her husband-Respondent No.2.

3. In the above background, Respondent No.1 filed Application before Maintenance Tribunal on 26 March 2019 alleging that on 17 August 2017 Petitioner No.1 took forcible possession of the concerned premises on the ground floor. Petitioner No.1 has filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against her husband.

4. On 27 October 2022 the Maintenance Tribunal has passed Order allowing the Application filed by Applicant and directing Petitioner and her husband to vacate the ground floor premises of the structure. Appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the Order of Maintenance Tribunal is rejected by Order dated 5 March 2021. By Order dated 6 December 2021 this Court has stayed implementation of the impugned Order dated 27 October 2020 and 5 March 2021. The said interim arrangement continues to operate till today on account of which Petitioners continues to reside in the concerned ground floor premises.

5. I have heard Mr. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners and Mr. Parshurami, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and 2. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Tribunal in their respective impugned Orders. I have also perused the record of the case.

6. There is a marital discord between Petitioner No.1 and her husband Respondent No.2 and this appears to be the possible reason why the father-in-law seeking eviction of daughter-in-law. In several instances it is observed that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be misused for the purpose of ensuring eviction of daughter-in-law, who has marital discord with her husband. This Court in Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani Vs. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors. in Writ Petition (L) No. 28282 of 2023 decided on 18 March 2024, has taken into consideration the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021) 15 SCC 730 and has held in paragraphs 21 to 25 as under:

“21. The interplay between the provisions of Senior Citizens Act and D. V. Act has been considered by the Apex Court in its Judgment in S. Vanitha (supra). In the case before the Apex Court, senior citizens ha