JUDGMENT :

Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Jay B. Trivedi waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.8 while Mr. Pinank Raiyani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1.

1. By way of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 9.11.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer Tribunal and Sub-Divisional; Magistrate, Gondal and the Order dated 21.03.2022 in Appeal No.3 of 2022 passed by the District Collector Rajkot (Appellate Tribunal), by which, the directions have been issued to evict the petitioner from her matrimonial home.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was married to one Lakshitbhai Manjibhai Savaliya on 25.2.2022 at Village Devgam. The husband is a Dentist practicing at Gondal. It is her case that she was residing with him at the “premises in question” or “shared household”.

2.2. The petitioner - wife and the husband are engaged in several litigations inasmuch as FIRs have been filed by him as well as the petitioner and the Petitioner was once arrested in the case of an FIR filed by her husband and then released on bail. Proceedings under the Protection Of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the Domestic Violence Act’) have been initiated by the petitioner wherein the Petitioner has also sought relief under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act to reside in the shared household. Various efforts have been made to dispossess the petitioner from the shared household. A complaint has been filed by her mother in law under the Land Grabbing Act.

2.3. The respondent No.1 filed Maintenance Case No.1 of 2021 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Senior Citizens Act’) seeking custody of the premises in question which was allowed by the impugned order dated 9.11.20021 and confirmed in Appeal vide order dated 21.3.2022.

3. Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner made the following submissions:

1). Inviting the Court’s attention to the Memo of the Application filed by the Respondent No.1, Mr Jasani would submit that if the prayers of the Application are perused, the same would indicate that they are misconceived. Reading the provisions of Section 2(b) which defines “maintenance” and also reading the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, he would submit that Section 23 of the Act only provides for the maintenance of a senior citizen or a parent and there is no provision envisaging an order of eviction and therefore the orders directing eviction of the Petitioner are without jurisdiction.

2). Mr. Jasani would further submit that the house is a “shared household” and the petitioner has a right to reside in the said house. That a complaint is also filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and by the order under the Senior Citizens Act, the right of the Petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act gets frustrated.

3). Mr Jasani would submit that complaints have also been filed by the respondent No.1, mother-in-law. He would invite the Court’s attention to the prayers in the Application under the Domestic Violence Act and submit that therein too a prayer has been made by the Petitioner that she may not be evicted from the shared household. He would submit that it is evident from the perusal of the reply filed by the Petitioner to the Application under the Senior Citizens Act wherein the Petitioner has specifically stated that the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act would not apply.

4). Mr Jasani would further submit that it is specifically pleaded in the Application filed by the Petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act that the respondent No.1 or her husband have multiple properties at various places.

5). Mr. Jasani inviting the Court’s attention to the findings of the original order and the appellate order would submit that no reasons have been assigned by both the au