JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(a) This writ petition may be accepted.

(b) The order dated 4/06/2018 (Ann. 3) passed by the court of Maintenance Tribunal and Sub-Divisional officer Jodhpur with case no. 18/2018 titled "Ganpat Singh & ors V/s Vishan Singh & ors." shall be quashed and set aside.

(c) the order of eviction passed against the present petitioners shall be set aside and the present petitioners shall be reinstated in the disputed property i.e. 6 Quarter number 413, 414, 415 Kudi Bhagtasani. Housing board, Jodhpur.

(d) The order of maintenance passed against the petitioner no. 3 shall be quashed and set aside.

(e) Order as to cost may be passed in favor of the present petitioners."

3. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, who are sisters, are daughters-in-law of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3 are married to petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 respectively.

4. The issue pertains to a dispute among a family household wherein the petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 were allegedly being ousted of their matrimonial home, through force and violence by their in- laws; and an FIR was also lodged by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 3 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, who was arrested by the police, and subsequently, released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents colluded and filed an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29760 of 2019).

7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that the parents, i.e. respondents No. 1 & 2 were harassed by their son and daughters-in-law, and were hence asked to vacate the parents' home, and that they were being ill treated to the extent that despite having three houses to their name, they were being forced to sleep under the open sky in the park near their house.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the learned courts below rightly ruled in favour of the respondents, upholding their rights under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the learned courts below, while ruling in favour of the respondents and eviction of the petitioners from the property of the respondents was ordered, ensured that the petitioner No. 1 was rightly provided a monthly maintenance for herself and her child. Further, the statement of the respondent No. 3, the other son, was also taken into evidence, which substantiates the submissions made on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2.

10. This Court also finds that the property in question i.e. the house(s) of the respondents No. 1 & 2, is their self acquired property and not an ancestral property within which if the petitioners had a rightful share, their claims may have been legitimate, and thus, the case would have been different altogether.

11. This Court has also perused the judgment rendered in Smt. S. Vanitha (supra), wherein it was observed that both the aforementioned legislations are Special Acts, while containing non obstante clauses, and in the event of a conflict between such Special Acts, the latter law should typically prevail. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, also observed that the exercise of the interpreter of such laws must however be one to analyse the legislative intention