The Maintenance Tribunal appropriately balanced the protective rights of a senior citizen and her daughter-in-law, ensuring peaceful coexistence under dual statutes.

JUDGMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN , J The challenge before us is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2025, which confirms Ext.P10 order earlier issued by the 1^st respondent- Statutory Maintenance Tribunal Constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Act” for short).

2. Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that, by confirming Ext.P10 order, his client, the 1^st appellant is now being exposed to great danger because, through it, the 2^nd respondent and her husband has been allowed to stay in the same house, where she and her children are residing on the strength of Ext.P6 order she obtained earlier under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act” for short). He explained that, though his client, the 1^st appellant does not have any objection in anyone staying in the house without disturbing her and her children’s peaceful possession and residence, if the 2^nd respondent and her husband are allowed to do so, it will create grave threat and security issues to her since, they are already implicated in several Crimes, for having used force against her, with support from her husband.

3. Sri.Mohanakannan, thereafter, submitted that Ext.P10 is infirm because no proceedings under the “Act” could have been initiated against his client, she being only the daughter-in-law of the Senior Citizen; explaining that what has been done is to obtain something which is impossible in law, using an oblique method. He argued that, when his client, the 1^st appellant already stands protected by Ext.P6 order of a competent Magistrate under the provisions of the “DV Act”, her estranged husband cleverly got his mother to move the 1^st respondent through a proceeding under the “Act” and thus prayed that the judgment impugned be set aside and consequently, Ext.P10 be declared to be illegal.

4. Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, however, submitted that the true facts are not as submitted by Sri.Mohanakannan because, his client is a senior citizen being entitled to protection under the “Act”; but that she has been virtually thrown to the streets without a place to stay solely because the appellants claim exclusive possession and residence over the building in question. He pointed out that the said building has two floors; and that the Maintenance Tribunal has been very circumspect in allowing the parties to occupy different floors, so as to avert any apprehension in their minds of any threat from each other. He then vehemently asserted that the allegations made by the appellants, that they were attacked by his client, is absolutely without basis; and that it is, infact, the senior citizen and her father who live in constant fear of threats and even violence at the hands of the former. He argued that the petition before the learned Family Court was not infirm because the Senior Citizen had no other option, but to have moved against the appellants, who are now holding exclusive possession of the property of her son, thus denuding her even a proper residence along with her husband. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

5. There are certain fundamental issues that cross out mind, when we consider this matter, as we will presently state.

6. No doubt, the 1^st appellant and her children are protected by an order from the jurisdictional Magistrate under the “DV Act”, namely Ext.P6. However, this order does not offer them exclusive accommodation in the house, but only shared residence. Obviously, the owner of the building-who is conceded to be the husband of the 1^st appell