While deciding a case, which presented the Court with an interesting question, the Gujarat High Court has ruled in favour of a woman who was in dispute with her elderly in-law and held that Senior Citizens Act won't prevail over Domestic Violence Act.
The single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi 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.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner is the father-inlaw of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent No. 2 herein. Respondents were married in 2017. It was their second marriage after their divorce from the previous marriages. Respondent-Wife was having a daughter and Respondent-Husband was having a son. That, after the marriage, the respondents started living in the suit property, however, on Respondent-Husband returned to the USA later after marriage and on the very same day, the Respondent-Wife also left the suit property, so as to reside at her own flat.
Respondent-Wife never stayed in the suit-property in the absence of her husband. However, in one instance in 2020, she barged into the house of the petitioner with some people, including the lawyer, and forcefully entered the house and created a lot of ruckus and havoc.
On the very same day, she filed the suit in question before the Family Court along with interim injunction application Exh. 6. The said application came to be rejected. The petitioner also filed his written statement-cum-Reply-cum-injunction application Exh. 16, praying as aforesaid, which came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order, being grieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by this petition.
Learned Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the property belonged to the petitioner and the Respondent-Wife has by forcefully trespassed in the same and has breached the right of the petitioner and accordingly, an eviction order is solicited against her.
Further, referring to Section 3 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, he submitted that the said Act has an overriding and as provided in the said section, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. Accordingly, in his submission, the said Act has overriding effect upon the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also.
He also contended that none of the respondents has invested a single penny in the suit property and the petitioner – senior citizen has paid Rs.12 lakh for the same, and therefore also, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
In support of his case, the he relied upon several decisions including SC Ruling in The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Vs. K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom, 1961 Latest Caselaw 327 SC
Per Contra, the Learned Counsel of the Respondent-Wife submitted that it may be true that the flat owned by the Respondent-Wifeis given on rent, however, the same does not, in itself debar her from staying in her matrimonial home.
High Court Observation
The Court stated that the the issue, largely involved in the present petition, is 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.
It observed at the outset that petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and exercise of powers under such Article is imperatively spare. The Court cited SC Ruling in Shalini Shyam Shetty & ANR. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 Latest Caselaw 521 SC wherein the Apex Court has considered in detail the Scope of interference by this Court that, Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court Suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power would be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle.
"In exercise of its power of superintendence, High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."
The Court referred to the Supreme Court Ruling in S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, 2020 Latest Caselaw 663 SC normally, the provisions in Senior Citizens Act 2007 would prevail but there is some exception to this rule as held by the Apex Court under its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the aforesaid decision that the significant object of the Domestic Violence Act is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household.
While refuting the Learned Counsel of the petitioner's contention that the said decision is not binding to this Court inasmuch as the Apex Court, under its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has passed such an order, the Court noted:
The Court further noted that as per definitions of “Children” under Section 2(a), “Parent” under Section 2(d) and “Senior Citizen” they include/mean the persons mentioned therein. The a bare reading of the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007, reveals that a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5 to the Tribunal as constituted by the State Government under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 2007.
The Court observed that as noted in Head Note ‘B’ that, “Sections 17 and 19 – Right to reside in shared household – The aggrieved has right to reside in shared household property continues until she proves that she is a victim of domestic violence, irrespective of the fact that who is owner of property” and thus “Shared household” means and include where a person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent and it may be a joint family or jointly tenanted irrespective of title or ownership of property.
Conclusively, the Court ordered that the Respondent-Wife herein, under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, has right to shared household.
Case Title: JAGDEEPBHAI CHANDULAL PATEL Versus RESHMA RUCHIN PATEL D/O SHANKARLAL HATHIRAM SANJHIRA
Case Details: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11129 of 2021
Coram: DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Counsels: MR YN OZA, SR ADVOCATE with SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1 MR JAMSHED KAVINA(11236) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 PARESHKUMAR M VADHER(9204) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 PRADEEP K THAKKER(9171) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
