Supreme Court Protects Women’s Right to Shared Household Under Domestic Violence Act Over Senior Citizens Act: Smt. S Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 942
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Indu Malhotra, J., and Indira Banerjee, J. (authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.)

Can a senior citizen evict their daughter-in-law from a shared household using the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, even when the daughter-in-law has rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in this case. The court had to decide whether the Senior Citizens Act could override the rights of a woman to reside in her shared household under the Domestic Violence Act. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the interplay between these two important legislations.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between Smt. S Vanitha (the appellant), her in-laws (the second and third respondents), and her estranged husband (the fourth respondent). The appellant was married to the fourth respondent on 30 May 2002. Soon after, matrimonial disputes arose, and the appellant alleged dowry harassment. The appellant and the fourth respondent have a daughter. The property in question, a residential house in North Bengaluru, was purchased by the fourth respondent on 2 May 2002, just before the marriage. The appellant claims her father financed a portion of this purchase.

On 5 October 2006, the fourth respondent sold the land to his father, the third respondent, for the same amount he paid for it in 2002. In 2009, the fourth respondent filed for divorce. Following the purchase, the third respondent built a house and gifted it to his wife, the second respondent, on 19 July 2010. Subsequently, on 17 August 2010, the second respondent filed a suit seeking to restrain the appellant from interfering with the property’s possession. This suit is still pending. The divorce was granted on 5 December 2013, but was later set aside by the High Court on 14 January 2016. The divorce and maintenance proceedings are still pending. In 2015, the third and second respondents filed an application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking the appellant’s eviction from the house, along with maintenance from the fourth respondent.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directing the appellant to vacate the premises and ordering the fourth respondent to pay monthly maintenance to his parents. The Deputy Commissioner upheld this order on appeal. The Karnataka High Court also upheld the eviction order in writ proceedings. The Division Bench stated that the appellant’s remedy for maintenance and shelter was only against her estranged husband. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the authorities to order her eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(b) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Defines “maintenance” to include provisions for food, clothing, residence, and medical care.
• Section 2(f) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Defines “property” broadly to include any kind of property and rights or interests in it.
• Section 3 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Gives the Act overriding effect over other laws.
• Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Recognizes the entitlement of parents and senior citizens to claim maintenance.
• Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Deals with the transfer of property by senior citizens and their right to maintenance from such property. Specifically:
  • Section 23(1): States that if a senior citizen transfers property with the condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and the transferee fails to do so, the transfer can be declared void.
  • Section 23(2): States that if a senior citizen has a right to maintenance from an estate, that right can be enforced against a transferee who has notice of the right or if the transfer is gratuitous.
• Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Defines “shared household” as a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, including households owned or tenanted by either party or a joint family.
• Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Grants a woman the right to reside in a shared household.
• Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Allows a magistrate to pass residence orders.
• Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Allows reliefs under the Act to be sought in other legal proceedings.
• Section 36 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: States that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws.

The Court noted that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 aims to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy for senior citizens, while the PWDV Act, 2005 aims to protect women from domestic violence and ensure their right to reside in a shared household.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that she was residing in her matrimonial home and could not be evicted due to the protection offered by Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• She contended that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, were a collusive attempt by her in-laws and estranged husband to deprive her of her matrimonial home.
• The appellant pointed out that the decree for dissolution of marriage had been set aside by the High Court and the matter was pending before the Family Court.
• She claimed that the transfers of the property were manipulated to defeat her rights under the PWDV Act, 2005.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja [Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020], to assert her right to reside in a shared household.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that they were senior citizens and the suit premises belonged to them.
• They contended that the appellant had illegally entered and ousted them from the property.
• The respondents submitted that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, had the jurisdiction to pass eviction orders to protect the life and property of senior citizens.
• They argued that the term “maintenance” in Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, includes residence, and the right to reside can be enforced by a senior citizen.
• The respondents contended that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was intended to provide speedy relief to senior citizens, and relegating them to civil courts would defeat the purpose of the Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, had the jurisdiction to order the eviction of the appellant from her shared household.
2. Whether the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, could be manipulated to defeat the rights of the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. Whether the appellant’s claim that the premises constitute a “shared household” under the PWDV Act, 2005, could be overridden by an order of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions Considered:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja [Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020]* to define the term “shared household” and to emphasize the right of a woman to reside in the shared household, irrespective of her legal interest in it. The Court also relied on Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh [(2008) 8 SCC 148]* and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India [(2019) 8 SCC 416]* to emphasize the principle of statutory interpretation, that in the event of a conflict between special acts, the dominant purpose of both the statutes have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect women’s rights, particularly their right to reside in a shared household, as enshrined in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court recognized that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while important for protecting senior citizens, should not be used to undermine the rights of women under the PWDV Act, 2005. The Court emphasized the importance of harmonizing both legislations to ensure that the rights of vulnerable groups are protected. The Court also noted that the series of transactions of the property were done to defeat the rights of the appellant under the PWDV Act, 2005.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the need to protect the rights of women under the PWDV Act, 2005. The Court held that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, could not be used to circumvent the protections provided to women under the PWDV Act, 2005. The Court also noted that the series of transactions of the property were done to defeat the rights of the appellant under the PWDV Act, 2005.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, held that the order of eviction against the appellant was not valid. Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee concurred with the opinion.

“The definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.”

“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 legislations have to be harmoniously construed.”

“Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 of the PWDV Act 2005.”

Key Takeaways

• The Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be used to override the rights of a woman to reside in a shared household under the PWDV Act, 2005.
• Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, must consider the competing claims of parties under the PWDV Act, 2005.
• Property transfers designed to defeat the rights of women under the PWDV Act, 2005, will not be upheld.
• The definition of “shared household” under the PWDV Act, 2005, is exhaustive and includes a household where a woman has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of ownership.
• Both the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the PWDV Act, 2005, must be harmoniously construed to protect the rights of vulnerable groups.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The order of eviction against the appellant was set aside.
• The appellant was allowed to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005, with the help of the District Legal Services Authorities.
• The fourth respondent was directed to restore the electricity connection to the premises within two weeks and continue to pay the electricity dues.
• The respondents were restrained from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises, or creating any third-party rights for one year, to enable her to pursue remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be used to override the rights of a woman to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This decision clarifies the interplay between these two important legislations, ensuring that the rights of vulnerable groups are protected. This judgment also clarifies that the definition of “shared household” under the PWDV Act, 2005, is exhaustive and includes a household where a woman has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of ownership, and that the courts must consider the dominant purpose of both the statutes before deciding the issue.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Smt. S Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner is a significant step in protecting the rights of women facing domestic violence. The Court has clarified that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be used to circumvent the protections provided to women under the PWDV Act, 2005, particularly the right to reside in a shared household. This decision ensures that the rights of vulnerable groups are balanced and protected under the law.

Category

Parent Category: Family Law
Child Categories: Domestic Violence, Shared Household, Senior Citizens Rights, Section 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Parent Category: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Child Categories: Section 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Parent Category: Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Child Categories: Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

FAQ

Q: What is a “shared household” according to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
A: A “shared household” is a place where a woman has lived in a domestic relationship, whether owned or tenanted by her or her partner, or even if it belongs to a joint family. It includes any place where she has lived at any stage of the relationship.

Q: Can a senior citizen evict their daughter-in-law from a shared household using the Senior Citizens Act, 2007?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be used to override a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The rights of both parties have to be balanced.

Q: What should a woman do if she is facing eviction from her shared household?
A: A woman facing eviction from her shared household can seek protection under the PWDV Act, 2005. She can approach the Magistrate for a residence order and can also seek help from the District Legal Services Authorities.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for women facing domestic violence?
A: This judgment is significant because it reinforces the protection provided to women under the PWDV Act, 2005, ensuring that they cannot be easily evicted from their shared household, even if their in-laws claim ownership of the property.

Q: What is the interplay between the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDV Act, 2005?
A: The Supreme Court has clarified that both acts must be harmoniously construed. While the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 aims to protect senior citizens, it cannot be used to undermine the rights of women under the PWDV Act, 2005, especially concerning their right to reside in a shared household.