Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR

The legal document discusses the complex interplay between the rights of women in shared households under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the protections afforded to senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The key points are as follows:

1. The right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be overridden by an eviction order obtained through summary procedures under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) (!) .

2. Both legislations—PWDV Act, 2005 and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—serve public welfare and are intended to be harmoniously construed. The protections under the PWDV Act, 2005, especially regarding a woman’s right to residence, must be preserved despite the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) (!) .

3. The definition of "shared household" under the PWDV Act, 2005, is exhaustive and includes households where the woman has lived or currently lives in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or legal interest. This definition extends to households belonging to joint families, whether owned or tenanted (!) (!) (!) .

4. The enforcement of rights under the PWDV Act, 2005, such as residence orders, is not displaced by the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even when proceedings are initiated under the latter. The remedies under the PWDV Act are supplementary and can be pursued concurrently or subsequently (!) .

5. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, primarily aim to provide speedy and inexpensive relief to senior citizens, including maintenance and protection of property. However, these provisions do not automatically confer the authority to order eviction of a woman from her shared household, especially when such eviction would defeat her legal rights under the PWDV Act, 2005 (!) (!) .

6. In cases where there are conflicting claims, courts and tribunals should adopt a harmonious approach, considering the dominant purpose of each legislation. If a woman claims a right in a shared household, her claim should be examined and protected, and eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, should not be used as a means to defeat her rights (!) (!) .

7. The law emphasizes that rights in law should translate into rights in life only if there is equitable access to their realization. Therefore, legal remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005, remain available and effective, even in the context of proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (!) .

8. The legal framework encourages the use of appropriate forums to resolve disputes involving rights under both statutes, with tribunals and courts expected to mold reliefs after considering the competing claims, rather than resorting to summary eviction procedures that could undermine the protections granted to women (!) (!) .

In summary, the protections for women’s residence rights under the PWDV Act, 2005, are to be preserved and cannot be bypassed solely through proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Both laws aim to serve the welfare of vulnerable groups and must be interpreted harmoniously to ensure that the rights of women to reside in shared households are upheld alongside the protections for senior citizens.