“Can't Render Wife Homeless For Senior Citizen In-Laws' Peace”: Bombay HC Stays Eviction Till Interim Decision On Shared Household Under DV Act
The Bombay High Court stayed an order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her matrimonial home under the Senior Citizens Act for six months until a Magistrate decides her interim application for residence under the Domestic Violence Act.Justice Sandeep Marne held that when there's a conflict between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and those of women under...
The Bombay High Court stayed an order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her matrimonial home under the Senior Citizens Act for six months until a Magistrate decides her interim application for residence under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Sandeep Marne held that when there's a conflict between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and those of women under the Domestic Violence Act, a balanced approach is required and the rights of senior citizens cannot be determined in isolation.
“Petitioner cannot be rendered homeless to ensure peace of mind of the senior citizens,” the court added.
The judge was hearing an appeal filed by a daughter-in-law against an order of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that directed her and her husband to vacate the mother-in-law's house.
The woman who has lived with her in-laws for over 27 years contended that the Maintenance forum was being misused to throw her out of her matrimonial house by the husband in connivance with his parents.
The Senior Citizen complaint was filed after the woman filed a police complaint against the in-laws in November 2022 and her 19-year-old son filed a police complaint against her.
Immediately after, the daughter-in-law filed a domestic violence complaint against her husband and in-laws.
In an interim order, the tribunal directed the daughter-in-law and the son to vacate the house. Soon after the woman approached the High Court, which protected her from being evicted from time to time.
The in-laws through advocate Vivek Kantawala submitted that the senior citizens have absolutely nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of the couple and they merely want peace of mind during the sunset days of their lives.
He pointed out that the daughter-in-law had made sexual harassment allegations against the father- in-law in a bid to demonstrate the atmosphere persisting in the house.
However, the court noted that the family had several properties, used expensive cars. Justice Marne observed that the Maintenance Tribunal failed to consider the interplay between the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner.
The Apex Court held that right of a woman to secure residence in respect of shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act.
“Though in every case, order of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be made subject to proceedings filed by wife under DV Act, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the husband has not made any arrangements for residence of Petitioner, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate who is in seisin of the DV Compliant takes decision on at least the interim prayers of Petitioner.”
The summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to defeat or nullify the protection granted to a wife's right to a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDVA, the bench held.
The Court recognized that while senior citizens are entitled to a peaceful life, a wife cannot be rendered homeless or denied her statutory right to a shared household through summary eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act.
“While the senior citizens cannot be entirely wrong in expecting that they live peacefully during the sunset days of their lives, in the facts and circumstances of the case, their grievance cannot be considered in isolation and Petitioner must also be permitted to get her claim of residence in shared household adjudicated, at least at interim stage,” Court said.
Significantly, the court noted that if the woman was living separately from her in-laws, she would have a claim to the matrimonial home, that right could not be taken away from her merely because she was living in a joint family set up.
“Does it mean that a wife staying separately from her in-laws enjoys better protection than the one who chooses to reside in a joint family with her in-laws? The answer to the question would obviously be in the negative,” Court said.
The Court suspended the eviction order against the wife for six months, allowing her to get her interim prayer for residence adjudicated under the DV Act complaint pending before the Magistrate.
The Court clarified that the Magistrate should decide the wife's interim residence prayer without being influenced by any observations in the present judgment, ensuring an independent adjudication of her rights.