SMT. S. VANITHA V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGLURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ORS.

CASE: SMT. S. VANITHA V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGLURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ORS.

Case Citation:

2020 SC 987

Name of the Parties:

Appellant- Daughter-in-law (Wife of Respondent 4)

Second Respondent- Mother-in-law (Senior Citizen; owner of suit premises by gift deed)

Third Respondent- Father-in-law (Senior Citizen; original purchaser after sale from son)

Fourth Respondent- Husband (Spouse of the appellant)

Introduction:

The balancing of the interests of the individuals is the main purpose of the law and upholding the principles of justice, equity, good conscience and reasonableness is essential for the welfare of society. The present case depicts how the court had concluded the case by balancing the interest of women, on one hand while senior citizens on the other hand, both being vulnerable sections of society. The court has taken the judicial approach and analyzed each principle while concluding the case.

Facts of the Case:

In the given case, there was dispute between husband and appellant and the senior citizens (parents of the husband) with respect to the eviction of residential property in Northern Bengaluru. The appellant and the husband got married on 30 May 2022 and later dispute arose between them and the appellant alleged harassment, dowry and desertion against the respondents. A daughter was born out of the wedlock. The property in the suit was purchased by the husband in May 2022 prior to marriage. Later, he sold the said property to his father for some consideration. The respondent, i.e., father-in-law, gifted the property to the mother-in-law.

The divorce was filed by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Trial Court granted the divorce in 2013, but the High Court set aside the divorce decree. In 2015, the parents of the husband filed suit under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking eviction of the appellant and maintenance from their son. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the eviction. The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and Karnataka High Court. The appellant challenged the said order of eviction by the authorities and approached Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues of the Case:

1. Whether the Authorities can order eviction to women even when she has Right to Residence under the provision of PWDVA?
2. Whether the Senior Citizens Act will be having an overriding effect upon the PWDVA?

Arguments of the Parties:

• Appellant:

1. The proceeding under the Senior Citizens Act was fraudulently initiated with the purpose of evicting the appellant from the matrimonial property violating her Right to Residence under Section17 of PWDVA.
2. The appellant is the lawfully wedded wife of the husband as the divorce decree as already been set aside by the High Court and hence is entitled to the residence in the shared household.
3. The Senior Citizen Act does not expressly provide for the eviction powers to the authorities.

• Respondent:

1. The property in the given case can be termed as the self-acquired property and is validly gifted to the mother-in-law.
2. The maintenance can only be claimed by the wife from the husband and not from the senior citizens.
3. The authorities have been provided with the power to eviction in cases where there is the necessity to protect the interests of the senior citizens.
4. The property is not the shared household; rather, it is the self-acquired property of the father-in-law.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the judgment in favor of the appellant upholding that the women have the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the orders by the authorities of eviction is violating the interests of the women and their rights under the PWDVA. The Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act must be harmoniously read together, and none of the legislation can override the provisions or laws laid down in the other legislation. Thus, the Court upholds the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and gave the order in favor of appellant.

Analysis:

The Court in the given case held that both the statutes, i.e., PWDVA,2005 and Senior Citizens Act, are special legislations which have been enacted to protect the vulnerable section of the society. Therefore, both the Acts have been formulated with significant objects. The main object of PWDVA is to provide and recognize the rights of a women to reside in shared household and to reside in matrimonial households in order to protect their interests.

Allowing Senior Citizens Act to have an overriding effect in all the situations irrespective of competing entitlements of a women to a right in the shared household within the meaning of DVA would defeat the object and purpose which Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. The law protecting the interests of the senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not destitute equally; the purpose of DVA cannot be ignored. Both sets of legislation have to be harmoniously construed.

Thus, the court in the given case held that the woman’s right to shared household cannot be defeated by the expedient of securing an order of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act. The rights of the women cannot be seen with regards to the ownership of the property. The property can be called the shared household even if it belongs to the parents-in-laws. The High Court passed the order focusing solely on the ownership without examining the statutory rights.

The Tribunal has the power to order eviction in certain cases, but it cannot be violative of other statutory rights. The court observed that the women and senior citizens- both are the vulnerable groups in society and upholding one’s interests would be violative of the rights of the others. Hence, it is better to harmonize both laws to do equity.

Ratio Decidendi:

The proceedings under the Senior citizens Act which were initiated to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, must take into consideration the right of the residence of the women under the PWDVA.The given judgment is in line with the principles of the Constitution.

Jurisprudential Essence:

1. Expands the scope of women’s rights to residence.
2. Gives clarity about the extent of power of eviction under the Senior Citizen Act.
3. It gives clarity about how the laws must be harmoniously construed for welfare purposes.
4. It prevents misuse of the Senior Citizen Act for matrimonial disputes.
5. It widens the scope of judicial interpretation.

Critical Evaluation:

The given judgment is progressive in nature. The judgment ensures that the Senior Citizens Act is not being used for the purposes of the matrimonial disputes in India. But still there are some ambiguities which are left open ended and are not resolved by this judgment:

1. There is no exhaustive definition of the extent of the eviction of powers under the Senior Citizens Act.
2. The implementation of the act may vary depending upon the rules framed by each state.

Despite all these problems, the judgment ensures women are not homeless by misusing the Special legislations.

Conclusion:

In this case, the Court held that the special legislation must be harmoniously construed. The Senior Citizens Act was primarily enacted with an aim to protect the senior citizens from their exploitation. It was primarily made to provide care and protection for older people. In this Act, the senior citizens who are unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or out the property owned by them are entitled to make an application u/s.4 of the Act. On the other hand, the PWDVA was enacted to protect the aggrieved women as they are entitled to reside in the shared household.

Here, it has been held by the Court that the eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act cannot violate the woman’s rights under the PWDVA.