Petitioner sought to quash eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that facts did not reveal a conflict requiring balancing of rights under the PWDV Act, 2005.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.66 of 2022 With
I.A. No.11461 of 2022
Shail Devi .......... Petitioner. -Versus-
| .......... Respondents. ----- |
|
|---|---|
| CORAM : HON’BLE MR. | JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- |
| For the Petitioner : |
Mr. Nirupama, Advocate |
| For the State : |
Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P.II |
| ----- | |
| Order No.06 | Date: 02.03.2023 |
2
for eviction of the petitioner, her husband and son, which was registered as MAWOPASC Case No. 03 of 2020. In the said case, notice as contained in memo no.71 dated 04.06.2020 was issued to the petitioner, her husband and son, whereafter reply was filed by her husband (respondent no.5) on 26.06.2020. However, the respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 06.10.2020 directed to vacate the said house within 15 days of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and her husband (respondent no.5) filed an appeal under section 16 of the Act, 2007 before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Ranchi, which was registered as MAWOPASC Appeal No. 26/R-15 of 2020. During pendency of the said appeal, the respondent no.4 moved this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3554 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2021, giving liberty to the respondent no.4 to file a fresh application for execution of the order dated 06.10.2020 before the respondent no.3 and on filing of such application, the respondent no.3 was directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for implementing the order dated 06.10.2020. Finally, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 11.12.2021 dismissed the said appeal upholding the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.3.
3
under section 17 of the Act, 2005. The petitioner is also a senior citizen and thus she is entitled for protection under the Act, 2007 as well. The petitioner and her husband have no alternative house to live in, whereas the respondent no.4 has more than eight houses and he is the owner of several vehicles, quarters, school etc. as well as he is also in occupation of the houses registered in the name of three brothers of the respondent no.5.
Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023, and submits that the authorities constituted under the Act, 2007 have no jurisdiction to order for eviction of the petitioner, her husband and son since the proceeding has been utilized to ensure the eviction of the petitioner so as to deny her claim of right to reside in the shared household under the provisions of Act, 2005.
4
live in their house so long as the relationship between them were cordial, does not mean that they have to bear the burden of children throughout their life.
5
divorce case was instituted by the spouse of the appellant. Parallel to this, the appellant instituted a case for dowry harassment against her mother-in-law and her estranged spouse. The appellant also filed a case for maintenance against her husband. Subsequent to these events, the father-in-law and mother-in-law filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru under the provisions of the Act, 2007. The said application was allowed in favour of the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant (daughter-in-law) preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru district, which was dismissed. The writ petition filed by the appellant before learned Single Judge as well as the writ appeal filed before learned Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court were also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter
went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held as under:
“39. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the Civil Courts, under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. However, the overriding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act 2005. The PWDV Act 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under S.2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act 2005. Section 26 of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present case where the suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007. 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. In the event that the “aggrieved woman” obtains a relief from a Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, she shall duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act 2005, as per Subsection (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act 2005. This course of action would
6
ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the PWDV Act 2005 of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realized. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realization.”
7
in the present writ petition, she has not made any allegation against him, rather the record reveals that the petitioner and the respondent no.5 have conjointly been fighting with the other family members for property.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/AFR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction order passed by the MAWOPASC Tribunal infringes the protection of a woman's right over a shared household under the PWDV Act, 2005.
Whether the order would interfere in the jurisdiction of the Civil Court while dismissing the appeal against the eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.Explained¶28
Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Shail Devi
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi
Rana Sangram Singh
Rana Ram Ekbal Singh
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
