Woman's Right To Reside In 'Shared Household' Can't Be Defeated By Summary Eviction Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act?: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has observed that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

The Bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of S Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, wherein it was held that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.

The facts in brief 

Essentially, the petitioner, Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel (a senior citizen) is the father-in-law of respondent No. 1, Reshma Ruchin Patel, and the father of the respondent No. 2, who is presently residing in the USA.

Allegedly, his daughter-in-law, respondent No. 1, illegally trespassed his house and eventually, the petitioner had to move out of his house and reside at a different place, and accordingly, he moved a suit before the Family Court at Ahmedabad along with an interim injunction application.

He prayed for the issuance of order/directions to respondent No. 1, along with minor Kashvi to remove themselves from his house and to restrain them from using or occupying the said property as their residence.

The said application came to be rejected by the Family Court in March 2021. The petitioner's written statement-cum-Reply-cum-injunction application, praying as aforesaid, was also dismissed by way of the impugned order, and therefore, being grieved by the same, the petitioner came to the High Court, under the provisions of the Act of Senior Citizens Act 2007.

He claimed before the High Court that he is entitled to the said dwelling house and thus, an order be issued to evict his daughter-in-law (respondent No. 1) therefrom.

Whereas, the case of respondent no. 1  is that she, being the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, is entitled to the shared household in her matrimonial home and she cannot be evicted from the same under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the issue, largely involved in the petition was with regard to the applicability of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 vis-a-vis the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and inter se overriding effect thereof.

Referring to S Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the Court came to the conclusion that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act has no overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

"Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislation have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007," the Court stressed. 

Further, the Court also observed that the right to reside in the shared household continues till the victim proves that she is a victim of domestic violence. Accordingly, the Court held, that respondent No. 1, under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, has the right to a shared household.

Importantly, the Court also concluded that merely an offer being made to provide another suitable accommodation, cannot snatch away the legitimate right of respondent No. 1 of a shared household.

With this, the Court held that the Family Court did not commit any error and therefore, the petition failed and was dismissed.

Case title - Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel vs Reshma Ruchin Patel
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 2

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment