Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Ashwini W/O Sumant Bagewadi vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Belagavi on 25 July, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 100616 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. ASHWINI W/O. SUMANT BAGEWADI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOME-MAKER,
R/O. PLOT NO.533, "SUBRAMANYA NILAYA",
NEAR SHIVALAYA, KANABARGI ROAD,
RAMTIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHESH G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BELAGAVI,
THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS
AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF BELAGAVI,
THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS
AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER &
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DIVISION BELGAUM,
D.C. COMPOUND, CHAVAT GALLI CORNER-590001.
3. MR. BHIMAPPA VIRBHADRAPPA BAGEWADI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. PLOT NO.533, "SUBRAMANAYA NILAYA",
NEAR SHIVALAYA, KANABARGI ROAD,
RAMTIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
4. MRS. MAHADEVI W/O. BHIMAPPA BAGEWADI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O.PLOT NO.533, "SUBRAMANAYA NILAYA",
NEAR SHIVALAYA, KANABARGI ROAD,
-2-
RAMTIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
5. MR. SUMANT BHIMAPPA BAGEWADI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O.PLOT NO.533, "SUBRAMANAYA NILAYA",
NEAR SHIVALAYA, KANABARGI ROAD,
RAMTIRTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. YOGESH M. DESAI, ADV. FOR R3-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/08/2023
ORDERING EVICTION OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE HELP OF
JURISDICTIONAL POLICE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE MAINTENANCE
AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL
(ASST. COMMISSIONERS COURT) BEARING COMPLAINT NUMBER-
SCPA-CR-05/2023-24 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY;
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR AN ORDER
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 11/01/2024-CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
TRIBUNAL ORDERING EVICTION OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE
HELP OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICE BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR
THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR
CITIZENS TRIBUNAL (DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS COURT)-BEARING
NUMBER-RB/SC/AP/06/2023-24 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY -AT ANNEXURE-B; AD-INTERIM RELIEFS IN TERMS OF
INTERIM PRAYER CLAUSE; PERMISSION TO AMEND THIS PETITION
AS AND WHEN NECESSARY; ANY OTHER ORDER, THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE PETITIONER
ABOVE NAMED SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.07.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED
THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
C.A.V ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the daughter-in-law
assailing the eviction order dated 4.8.2023 passed by
respondent No.2/The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Tribunal vide Annexure-A and
confirmed by the appellate Tribunal vide order dated
11.1.2024 as per Annexure-B.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent No.3/father-in-law filed eviction petition
under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of
parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "Senior
Citizens Act") seeking eviction of petitioner/daughter-in-
law. Respondent No.2, on enquiry, was of the opinion that
the petition property was acquired by respondent No.3,
who is a government servant by availing housing loan.
Recording the finding that the petition property is the self
acquired property of Respondent No.3/father-in-law,
respondent No.2 has directed petitioner to vacate the
premises occupied by her. This is confirmed by
respondent No.1/appellate Tribunal.
-4-
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
reiterating the grounds would contend that the eviction
order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal is not
sustainable as the Tribunal has over-looked the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S. Vanita .vs.
Deputy Commissioner1. He would further point out that
the order passed by respondent No.2/Tribunal and
confirmed by respondent No.1/appellate Tribunal is in
contravention of the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "DV Act").
Referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, he
would contend that petitioner's right of residence is
protected under the provisions of the DV Act and since
respondent No.5/husband has moved out of the shared
household with ulterior motive, the daughter-in-law's right
to residence has to be protected under the provisions of
the DV Act.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 3 and 4 supporting the reasons assigned by
1
AIR Online 2020 SC 897
-5-
the authority would contend that the petition property is
the self acquired property of respondent No.3 and
therefore, he would contend that the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra are
not applicable to the present case on hand. He would
contend that the Senior Citizen's Act provides a broader
spectrum of rights for senior citizens and therefore, the
provisions of Senior Citizens Act would prevail over the DV
Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for respondents.
6. Though the definition of shared household
under the DV Act is exhaustive, the Maintenance Tribunal
is bound to protect the Senior Citizen's rights, more
particularly, when sons are living in the father's property
as licencees. The petitioner has admitted that the petition
schedule property is the self acquired property of
respondent No.3. Therefore, the requisite ingredient of
shared household is found missing in the present case on
hand. Various High Courts while examining the provisions
-6-
of the Senior Citizens Act and DV Act have consistently
held that Senior Citizens Act has overriding effect over
other laws. The Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act
have power to order eviction, if necessary, to protect the
senior citizen's rights and well being. In the background of
admitted fact that petition property is the self acquired
property, petitioner's husband i.e. respondent No.5 can
live in third respondent's residential house only with
permission of respondent No.3 regardless of marital status
of petitioner and respondent No.5. Petitioner is not entitled
to seek protection under the provisions of the DV Act and
therefore, has to vacate the premises as she has no
inherent right in the property owned by the father-in-law.
7. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Vanitha's case (supra) is not at all applicable to the
present case on hand. In the said judgment, son had
transferred the property to his father to avoid proceedings
initiated by his wife under the D.V. Act. Even if there is
collusion in the present case on hand and respondent No.5
has vacated the premises only to enable respondent No.3
-7-
to initiate proceedings against petitioner/daughter-in-law,
the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment
cited supra are not applicable to the present set of facts.
The daughter-in-law cannot assert right of residence in the
residential house acquired by the father-in-law. Though
she is entitled to maintain a petition under the D.V. Act,
the reliefs sought in the instant petition have to be against
respondent No.5/husband and not against respondent
No.3/father-in-law.
8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
