CASE COMMENT
DATE OF THE CASE: 15th December, 2020
APPELLANT: Smt. S. Vanitha
RESPONDENT: The Deputy Commissioner
BENCH/JUDGES: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (J), Indu Malhotra (J), Indira Banerjee (J)
LEGAL PROVISIONS: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 3822/2020
FACTS
- The case revolves around the family dispute involving the appellant (daughter-in-law), the second and third respondents (her parents-in-law), and the fourth respondent (her husband). The parents of the husband filed an application under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
- In this application, they made several requests, one of which was to have the appellant and her daughter evicted from a residential house located in North Bengaluru.
- The appellant (the daughter-in-law) and the fourth respondent (her husband) got married on May 30, 2002.
- Before their marriage, husband owned a property in his name. However, after some time, he sold his property to his father (the second respondent).
- Problems started arising in their marriage, leading to a dispute between the husband and the appellant. As a result of this dispute, in 2009 the husband filed for a divorce from the appellant.
- The main issue revolves around a house which was bought by the husband in 2nd May 2002, just a few months before he married the appellants.
- In 5th October 2006, the husband sold the house to his father for the same price he initially paid i.e., 1.19 Lakhs.
- On 19th July 2010, the husband’s father transferred the house to his wife (husband’s mother) after divorce proceedings begin.
- The appellant filed a harassment case against her husband and mother-in-law for dowry demands.
- While this harassment case was ongoing, the respondent 2 instituted a suit against appellant seeking a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with the possession of the suit property.
- In 2015 the application was filed by the husband’s parents under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act of 2007 to request the eviction of appellant and her daughter from the suit property.
- The Assistant and Deputy Commissioner approved the request of the in-laws to evict the daughter-in-law from their home.
- The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the Deputy’s Commissioner’s decision. The High Court upheld the decision to evict the daughter-in-law.
- The appellant moved to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, arguing that the Assistant and Deputy Commissioner didn’t have the authority to order her eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the suit property constituted a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
- Whether the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
- How can the objectives of both the Acts, be harmoniously maintained, ensuring that the rights and protections afforded by each Act are respected and enforced without conflicting with each other?
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
- According to the Mr. Yatish, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant has the right to stay in her matrimonial house because she is legally married to the fourth respondent and so she cannot be evicted from her shared household as she is protected by section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Moreover, to support his argument, the appellant referred the decision of this court in Satish Chandra Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja. Also, the divorce decree issued by the Trial Court was set aside by the Divisional Bench of the High Court on January 14, 2016.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
- Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the house was constructed by the third respondent, the father-in-law and later given as a gift to his wife. The appellant entered into the possession unlawfully and therefore, the second and third respondent filed an application for eviction of appellant and restoration of their property which was allowed by the concerned authorities.
RATIONALE
On first issue, the Apex Court cited the case S.R Batra v. Taruna Batra (2006), in whichthe interpretation was not in consistent with the object and purpose of the Act and therefore, the interpretation of definition of shared household is not correct and this judgment does not lay down the correct law. Because the SC held that the word “shared household” is only indicate that property on which the husband has any interest, rights, share or owned as a tenant.
The Apex Court cited another case “Satish Chandra Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja” (2020), where SC gave very nicely interpretation of the word “shared household” under section 2(s) of DV Act which gave “Means and Include” approach and overruled his earlier judgment. The interpretation was given in two ways:
Part I: Means part of expression “shared household”
- Shared household means where person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent.
- Or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent.
Part II: Inclusive and extended part of the expression “shared household”
- Whether owned or tenanted either jointly the aggrieved person or the respondent, or
- Owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either of the aggrieved person and respondents or both jointly or singly have any right, title or equity.
By taking recourse to the “means and includes” approach, it was observed by the court that the definition of shared household cannot be read to mean only the household which belongs to the husband or of which the husband is a member and can even include the household belonging to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman was lived. It means wife is entitled to claim right of residence in the property which belongs to even relatives of husband. The living of woman in a household has to refer some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living shall not be given under the preview of shared household. The intention of the parties is important to look whether the parties intended to live that premises as shared household or not.
SC said that the wife or husband has lived at any time in domestic relationship, so, on every property, whether it was joint family property or tenanted premises or anyone who has owned, the wife has a right of shared household and she can live there.
The Apex Court overruled the decision of the High Court and setting aside the order of the eviction and held that Summary eviction procedure under Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to take away a women’s right to live in her husband’s family home, as protected by the Domestic Violence Act. This means that a daughter-in-law has the freedom to claim her right to live in her in-laws’ property.
On second issue, the Supreme Court has held 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. It means that the woman’s right cannot be deprived by senior citizens in this way.
SC in its judgment provided an important clarification regarding the coexistence of two significant legislative acts. It held that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, could not be used to undermine a woman’s right of residence in a shared household, as protected by the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It discussed the concept of harmonious construction. When there is a conflict between two or more statutes, the rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted. Every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and that statute should be read as a whole so the interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. It shouldn’t aim to destroy any object of the statutes. So, the court observed that both the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act are welfare legislation and there is a need to harmoniously constitute them.
The Supreme Court has harmonized the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act in which Section 36 of the DV Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to other remedies and does not displace or override them. However, Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act shall have an overriding effect over all the other enactments.
By exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court concluded that nobody can forcefully dispossessed the daughter in law for a period of one year and enable the appellant wife to pursue her remedies in accordance with law.
DEFECTS IN LAW
There is a lack of clarity regarding the hierarchy of these two statutes when they conflict. The objectives of both the Acts are different according to their specific needs. The intent of the legislature is clear in both the two Acts. Both should be followed as per their needs. But when the conflict arises, then the situation arise that which one should be prevail. The objectives do not clearly indicate which Act should take precedence when there is a conflict.
The language used in both the statutes is not clear and unambiguous, leaving room for interpretation regarding the laws, rights of the parties and remedies available to them.
The differing remedies under these Acts can creates complexity when both the statutes are invoked simultaneously.
INFERENCE
According to the Court’s judgment, that underscores the significance of upholding a woman’s right to reside in a shared household. It establishes a legal precedent that prioritizes the protection of woman’s right and ensures that the Domestic Violence Act takes precedence over conflicting legislation.
This judgment is mainly in favour of woman because senior citizens act cannot be used against the rights of woman.
It can create problem in future because nobody knows whether daughter in law will use or misuse this interpretation.
It suggests that the two acts are co-exist, provided they are interpreted and applied in a manner that respects the rights of all parties involved.
It also suggests that if parents in law really wants to evicts daughter in law from home, they have to use the eviction suit under civil case as a separate suit which can take time like 3 to 4 years. But it cannot evict under Senior citizens Act by using summary eviction procedure only.
Submitted By-
Gauri Gupta
Post-Graduated (LL.M.)
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur