THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, AT BENGALURU DATED 18.12.2025 IN CASE NO. MSC-CR-48/2025, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and is presently residing in the residential property which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings. Respondents 2 and 3, claiming to be senior citizens, instituted proceedings under Sections 5 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "the Senior Citizens Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner from the schedule property.

2. The petitioner contends that upon receipt of notice issued by the Tribunal, she appeared through counsel and filed detailed objections specifically questioning the maintainability of the proceedings. It was contended before the Tribunal that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act do not contemplate initiation of eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner acting as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and direct eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question.

3. The petitioner further contends that the dispute between the parties arises out of long-standing matrimonial discord between the petitioner, her husband and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had voluntarily left the petition premises as far back as in the year 2015 and had thereafter chosen to reside with their other son. It is her specific case that the allegations of harassment and ill- treatment attributed against her are wholly false, exaggerated and motivated with an intention to forcibly dispossess her from the shared household.

4. The petitioner further submits that owing to serious matrimonial disputes, she had already initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "Domestic Violence Act") seeking protection orders and enforcement of her right of residence in the shared household. It is contended that the petition schedule property constitutes a “shared household” within the meaning of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, as she has been residing therein ever since her marriage along with her minor child.

5. It is further contended that after the impugned order came to be passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was summoned by the Girinagar Police for implementation of the eviction order and, apprehending imminent dispossession from the shared household, she sought advancement of the proceedings pending under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner submits that while considering her application under Section 19(1)(a) and (c) of the Domestic Violence Act, the competent Court, by ad- interim order dated 07.03.2026, protected the possession and residential rights of the petitioner in the shared household and restrained interference with her residence therein.

6. Assailing the impugned order, the petitioner’s Counsel contends that the Tribunal has failed to consider the material circumstance that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had voluntarily vacated the premises and shifted to reside with their other son several years prior to initiation of the proceedings. It is contended that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act have been instituted only as a counterblast to the matrimonial and domestic violence proceedings initiated by the petitioner.

7. The Counsel further con