Dismissed

Balasaheb Patil v. Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2024CRL.P/5479/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father sought eviction of son and family from his self-acquired Bengaluru house under the Senior Citizens Act; the daughter-in-law filed DV Act proceedings to resist it. The court upheld the Tribunal's eviction order, holding the Senior Citizens Act prevails, dismissed the writ petitions, and held Section 482 petitions against DV Act proceedings not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order upheld; WPs 7470/2021 and 7539/2021 dismissed; Crl.Ps 5479/2020 and 4818/2020 dismissed as not maintainable; Anil Kumar and family directed to vacate within 30 days.

Balasaheb Patil Vs Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF July 12, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5479 OF 2020 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4818 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION NO.7470 OF 2021 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.7539 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN CRL.P NO. 5479/2020 BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . BALASAHEB PATIL S/O. LATE. BABAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶11

RETD. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶12

2 . SMT. CHANNAMMA PATIL W/O. BALASHEB PATIL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.004, GROUND FLOOR PYRAMID TEMPLE BELL APARTMENT KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR BANGALORE-560 098.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. SONI @ SONIA PATIL W/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶19

CHI. ANSH PATIL S/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶20

KUM. AKIRA D/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

¶21

(RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN).

¶22

ANIL KUMAR S/O BALASAHEB PATIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.73, KPA BLOCK I MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITIONIS FILED UNDER U/S.482 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING IN CRL.MISC.NO.120/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C.-IV, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.

¶26

¶27

IN CRL.P.NO.4818/2020 BETWEEN:

¶28

1 . BASANAGOUDA S/O. LATE. BABAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC. ENGINEER R/AT NO. 115, 2ND MAIN AMRUTHNAGAR, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560 092.

¶29

2 . SMT. ASHWINI W/O. SATISH RACHANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. L-806 BRIGADE METROPOLIS GARUDACHARAPALYA MAHADEVPURA BANGALORE-560 048.

¶30

3 . SMT. SHANTALA W/O. JAISHEEL DHANDARGI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶31

PRESENTLY R/AT PYRAMID TEMPLE BELLS GROUND FLOOR,B BLOCK IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT RR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

¶32

...PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE)

¶34

¶35

AND:

¶36

1 . SMT. SONI @ SONIA PATIL W/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶37

2 . CHI. ANSH PATIL S/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶38

3 . KUM. AKIRA D/O. ANILKUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

¶39

RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶40

ALL ARE R/AT NO.73, KPA BLOCK, I MAIN , CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶43

THIS CRIMINAL PETITIONIS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING IN CRL.MISC.NO.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV M.M.T.C., BENGALURU AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶44

¶45

IN W.P.NO.7470/2021 BETWEEN:

¶46

SRI ANIL KUMAR S/O SRI.BALASAHEB BABAGOUDA PATIL AGED 42 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.73 KPA BLOCK,1ST MAIN CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040.

¶47

...PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION

¶51

BANGALORE-560 009.

¶52

2 . SRI. BALASAHEB BABAGOUDA PATILALIAS B.B. PATIL

¶53

S/O LATE SRI. BABAGOUDA PATIL R/AT HOUSE NO.73, KPA BLOCK 1ST MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040.

¶54

3 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009.

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1& R3; SRI AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶57

¶58

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 30.03.2021 VIDE ANNX-C PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶59

IN W.P.NO.7539/2021

¶60

BETWEEN:

¶61

1 . SMT. SONY @SONIA PATIL W/O SRI ANIL KUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶62

2 . ANSH PATIL S/O ANIL KUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

¶63

3 . AKIRA D/O ANIL KUMAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS

¶64

PETITIONER NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL GURDIAN I.E PETIONER NO.1

¶65

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.73 KPA BLOCK, 1ST MAIN CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 040.

¶66

...PETITIONERS

¶67

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶68

¶69

AND:

¶70

1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE-560009

¶71

2 . MR. BALASAHEB BABAGOUDA PATIL ALIAS B.B. PATIL S/O LATE BABAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS GARAGE PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR HOUSE LPREMISES NO.73, KPA BLOCK, 1ST MAIN,CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGLAORE-560040.

¶72

3 . MR. ANIL KUMAR S/O BALASAHEB BABAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GROUND FLOOR HOUSE PREMISES NO.73, KPA BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560040.

¶73

4 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE-560009.

¶74

…RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1& R4; SRI AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶76

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶78

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS AND WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

In the matter at hand, various legal provisions and acts are invoked creating a complex web of familial and legal disputes surrounding the residential property No.73 in Chandra Layout, Bengaluru. The legal saga surrounding the residential property in Chandra Layout, Bengaluru unfolds a tangled narrative of familial discord between a father and a son. These petitions are filed by father, mother and daughters on one side and the daughter-in-law on the other side. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull the family tree produced in the partition suit filed by son (Anilkumar) against his father, uncle, mother and

¶81

¶82

sisters in O.S.No.41/2019. The family tree is as under:

¶83

Babagouda @ Babugouda (Dead)

¶84

The father BalasahebPatil, is a Retired

¶85

Police Officer and therefore, claims that the residential

¶86

house at Chandra Layout, Bengaluru is his self acquired property. The father asserts that while he was serving as Police Officer, he applied for allotment

¶87

¶88

of plot to the BDA and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. At its core lies a fundamental

¶89

disagreement between BalasahebPatil and his son, Anilkumar, regarding the nature of the property. The family owns several agricultural lands, commercial properties and sites at Bijapur and other cities. There appears to be dispute after BalasahebPatil asserted that the residential house at Chandra Layout is his self acquired property whereas his son Anilkumar contends it to be a joint family ancestral property. This foundational dispute has led to a series of legal battles between father and son that delve into complex intersections of family dynamics and legal statutes.

¶90

The father BalasahebPatil lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 30.04.2019 requesting the police officer to take suitable action against his son and deliver possession

¶91

¶92

of second and third floors of the residential house to enable him to lead a peaceful life. This action of father led son to institute a partition suit in O.S.No.41/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sindgi. It seems on receipt of summons, father (BalasahebPatil) filed a petition in Misc. Petition No.69/2019-20 against son under Sections 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Senior Citizens Act, 2007”) requesting to evict the son and his family members from the schedule property and to handover physical possession of second floor and third floor.Simultaneously, Anilkumar’s wife namely Sony @ Sonia Patil initiates legal action under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act, 2005) alleging harassment and seeking remedies against in-laws and sisters-in-law. The miscellaneous petition filed by father was allowed by the authority and Anilkumar

¶93

¶94

(son) was directed to handover vacant possession to the father.

¶95

Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 5 and 23 of D.V.Act, 2005 calling upon the son to handover vacant possession, two petitions are filed before this Court. Anilkumar (son) assailing the eviction order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2021 has filed a petition in W.P.No.7470/2021. The daughter-in-law and children though not party before the Tribunal have also questioned the eviction order of the Tribunal in W.P.No.7539/2021. The proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 is also challenged by the in-laws in two petitions. Balasaheb Patil’s brother namely Basanagouda Patil assailing the proceedings initiated by daughter-in-law under the provisions of the D.V.Act, 2005 has filed Crl.P.No.4818/2020. Balasaheb Patil and his wife are

¶96

¶97

seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 by filing Crl.P.No.5479/2020 (D.V.Act, 2005).

¶98

Learned counsel appearing for the father,

¶99

mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at Chandra Layout, Bengaluru, is self acquired property of the father and has further pointed out that father while serving as a Police Officer applied for a vacant site and the BDA executed lease cum sale agreement dated 05.05.1999 and thereafter obtained registered sale deed from BDA. He would also point out that father has constructed a residential house in 1999 and

¶100

the construction is completed somewhere in the month of October 2005 while he was serving as a Police Officer. He would further point out that first and second floor is constructed in 2008-09 and the

¶101

¶102

constructions are made by father by utilizing savings and retirement funds and therefore, son has no right in the residential house.

¶103

Reiterating the grounds, he would further vehemently argue and contend that daughter-in-law Sony has no locus to question the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 5 and 23 of Senior Citizen Act, 2007 as she is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, W.P.No.7539/2021 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. He has vehemently argued and contended that daughter-in-law’s invocation of domestic violence is patently manipulative and the proceedings are initiated only to get over the eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He would further point that there are absolutely no allegations against husband Anilkumar by the daughter-in-law and the sole allegations are that it is a shared household as it

¶104

¶105

belongs to the joint family. Therefore, he would contend that the proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 being

¶106

collusive are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶107

Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Skanda Sharath vs. Assistant Commissioner¹ would point out that even if there is a claim by the rival parties asserting that properties are joint family properties, the Tribunal can order for eviction even in respect of a joint family property. Referring to the partition suit filed by the son, he would point out that the trial Court while considering the application filed under Order 39, at the first instance, rightly declined to grant injunction having taken cognizance of title documents insofar as residential house at Bengaluru is concerned.

¶108

1 2019 SCC Online Kar 3533

¶109

¶110

Reliance is placed on the judgment

¶111

rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Aditya Gupta vs. Narender Gupta & Others² . While taking this Court through the dictum laid down by the Delhi High Court, he would point out that the dispute regarding nature of the property needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court and until the rights are decided in a final decree proceedings, it is immaterial whether the property is joint family property and therefore, Balasaheb Patil as a senior citizen is entitled to seek eviction of his son by invoking the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶112

Referring to Section 27 of Senior Citizens Act,2007 he would further contend that jurisdiction of Civil Court stands ousted under Section 27 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and therefore, pendency of partition suit in O.S.No.41/2019 will not act as an

¶113

2 2023 SCC Online Del 1127

¶114

¶115

impediment for a senior citizen to work out efficacious remedy provided under Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶116

He would vehemently argue and contend that in the present set of facts the son cannot set up his wife to defeat the proceedings conferred on a senior citizen under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He would contend that son has set up his wife and proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005 are initiated only to get over the eviction order passed by the Tribunal. He would vehemently counter the respondents’ reliance placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others³ . Referring to the dictum, he would point out that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above case are applicable only when provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are

¶117

32020 SCC Online SC 1023

¶118

¶119

misused to override the proceedings instituted under the D.V. Act, 2005.

¶120

He would further place reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Ganesh and Ors. Vs. Sau. Nikita & Another⁴ , Prabhakar Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra⁵ , NamdeoBabujiBangde vs. State of Maharashtra⁶ and Anil Kumar Dhiman vs. State of Haryana⁷ and would contend that the Delhi, Bombay and Haryana High Courts have clearly held that even if criminal cases are lodged by wife against in-laws, the eviction order passed under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was upheld. He would further contend that Domestic Violence proceedings can be maintained only with respect to a shared house hold. Referring to the principles laid down by the

¶121

4(2021) SCC Online Bom 1290

¶122

52018 SCC Online Bom 2775

¶123

6AIR 2022 Bom 151

¶124

7AIR Online 2021 P&H 1036

¶125

¶126

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Gupta⁸ , he would contend that a shared house hold has to be understood as a household where husband is entitled to reside. Referring to the title documents relating to residential house at Bengaluru, he would point out that son admittedly residing as a licensee, daughter-in-law would not have a better right and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law under the provisions of D.V. Act, 2005 are not maintainable.

¶127

Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, while countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters primarily raised objection in regard to the maintainability of Crl.P.No.5479/2020 and 4818/2020 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.120/2019 under the provisions

¶128

8(2021) 1 SCC 414

¶129

¶130

of D.V. Act, 2005. He would contend that the proceedings initiated under the D.V.Act, 2005 being basically civil in nature provides different civil remedies to aggrieved women and therefore, he would contend that the proceedings under DV Act, 2005 being quasi civil nature, the petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, these petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. He would point out that the Domestic Violence proceedings are not amenable to Section 482 proceedings.

¶131

To buttress his arguments, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court and also the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunapareddy Alias NookalaShanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another⁹ . Learned Senior Counsel while

¶132

9(2016) 11 SCC 774

¶133

¶134

bringing to the notice of this Court in regard to the interim arrangement made vide order dated 02.12.2021 would point out that the fact that a comprehensive partition suit is pending, neither the son nor the daughter-in-law can be evicted from the premises. While assailing the order of the Tribunal under Section 23 read with Section 5 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 learned Senior Counsel would point out that there is no question of transfer of a property and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and pass the eviction order. The proceedings initiated by the father under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act admittedly does not pertain to grant of maintenance to senior citizens and there is no issue involved in regard to transfer of property and therefore, learned Senior Counsel would point out that petition filed by the father BalasahebPatil against his son seeking

¶135

¶136

eviction under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not maintainable. He would further point out that order of eviction cannot be enforced against daughter-in-law and minor children when admittedly they are not parties to the proceedings under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and more particularly when a petition under D.V. Act, 2005 is pending consideration.

¶137

Learned Senior Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi¹⁰ . Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that petition under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not maintainable when suit for partition is pending consideration before the competent civil Court. On these set of grounds, he would point out that the eviction order passed by the Tribunal in Misc.Petition

¶138

102022 SCC Online SC 607

¶139

¶140

No.69/2019 under Sections 5 and 23 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not sustainable and therefore, the petitions filed by son Anilkumar in W.P.No.7470/2021 and writ petition filed by daughterin-law and children in W.P.No.7539/2021 deserves to be allowed. He would further request this Court to dismiss the petitions filed under Section 482 filed in Crl.P.Nos.5479/2020 and 4818/2020.

¶141

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the material on record and the judgments produced by both the parties.

¶142

The present case revolves around a prime residential property located in Chandra Layout, Bengaluru. BalasahebPatil asserts that he applied for allotment of plot to the BDA while serving in the police department and subsequently, constructed a house

¶143

¶144

out of his self earnings and service benefits. In view of son filing a partition suit and asserting that the present petition property is an ancestral property, BalasahebPatil (father) filed a petition under Sections 5 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking eviction order against his son Anilkumar. The Tribunal having recognized the need to protect the rights of BalasahebPatil who is a senior citizen has issued eviction order calling upon his son Anilkumar and his family members to vacate the premises.

¶145

The daughter-in-law alleging that she has a right to reside in the shared household has filed a petition under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the D.V. Act, 2005 alleging ill-treatment and domestic discord under the provisions of D.V. Act.

¶146

Having heard learned counsel on record and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the son and daughter-in-law, one of the primary issue that needs

¶147

¶148

consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the proceedings under the D.V. Act, 2005 can be maintained when there is already an eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Another issue that has arisen for consideration is as to whether the father Balasaheb along with his children and his brother can maintain a petition under Section 482 challenging the domestic violence proceedings. This Court is also called upon to examine as to whether the protection and reliefs claimed by the daughter-in-law under the D.V.Act, 2005 can supersede the eviction order granted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶149

The object of Domestic Violence Act: The Domestic Violence Act aims to provide several remedies to an aggrieved women and protect them against any form of domestic violence as emphasized in Kunapareddy Alias NookalaShanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and

¶150

¶151

Another (supra). However, the primary object of D.V. Act, 2005 does not negate the rights and protection afforded to senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The pleadings in the partition suit filed by son Anilkumar indicates that he and his wife (Sony-daughter-in-law) are asserting interest in the residential house at Bengaluru since its inception. Para 12 of the plaint would give an indication as to why this dispute has arisen between father and the son and the said pleadings would also enable this Court to assert whether son to overcome an eviction order under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has set up his wife to invoke the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Para 12 of the plaint is extracted and the same reads as under:

¶152

“12. That, as promised by my parents and other family members there was a family arrangement to give the said house situated at Chandra Layout, Bengaluru to me for the

¶153

¶154

preservation of peace, honour of the family and for the avoidance of the litigation and as a security to me, and my wife, later on to my children and with a purpose of establishing and ensuring amenities as good will amongst the relations with a condition that the said house shall continue as ‘dwelling house’ for me my family and my parents and the said family arrangement was arrived at the time of engagement held at the dwelling house, situated at Chandra Layout Bangalore, a couple of months before my marriage, in the presence of relatives of both the sides (bride & bridegroom). The said family arrangement is final and binding on the parties. That, my marriage with Sony @ Sonia was performed on 27-05-2011.”

¶155

A cursory look at the above culled out paragraph clearly gives an indication that the marriage of Anilkumar with Sony was solemnized with an assurance that the prime residential property at Bengaluru would ultimately go to the son. The material placed on record prima facie demonstrates

¶156

¶157

that father (BalasahebPatil) while he was serving as a Police officer applied for a site by submitting an application to the BDA and subsequently, constructed a house. Anilkumar’s assertion that a family arrangement is already made prior to the marriage ensuring that the disputed residential house would be preserved for him, his wife Sony and their children and that this arrangement is made for preservation of peace and honour within the family and to avoid litigation further substantiates the father’s assertion and claim that the residential house being his self acquired property is entitled for protection and there is a bitterness and acrimony between father and son and also daughter-in-law.

¶158

Both the parties have cited judgments in support of their contention. This Court has examined the precedents to address the issue raised in the captioned petitions. The ratio laid down by the

¶159

¶160

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner(supra) has no application to the present case on hand. In the said case, son to resist wife’s petition under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act gifted the property to his father and set up his father only to resist the right of a wife to claim right of the residence.

¶161

The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides for the eviction of children or relatives if necessary to ensure the dignity, peace, and maintenance of senior citizens. However, this provision must be harmonized with the D.V. Act,2005 which protects a woman's right to reside in her shared household, ensuring neither Act's provisions are unjustly negated, as highlighted in

¶162

Vanita v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors(supra).

¶163

The interpretation of statutory provisions must align with the legislative objectives, as emphasized in Skanda Sharath v. Assistant Commissioner

¶164

¶165

(supra), to protect senior citizens' rights comprehensively. Eviction rules under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as noted in Darshana vs. Govt. of NCT¹¹ , should include daughters-in-law to ensure broad protection for senior citizens. Cases such as Sachin and another vs. Jhabbu Lal¹² and Anil Kumar Dhiman and another vs. State of Haryana and others¹³ affirm that sons can reside in their father's self-acquired property only with the father's permission, irrespective of their marital status. Further, Santosh Surendra Patil v. Surendra Narasgonda Patil and others¹⁴ illustrates that tribunals can nullify property transfers to children who fail to maintain their parents, and Manmohan Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and

¶166

11 AIR online 2018 DEL 2358

¶167

12 AIR 2017 DELHI 2017

¶168

13 Crwp.1357-2019 DD. 21.09.2021

¶169

14 Wp.1791/2016 DD 23.06.2017

¶170

¶171

Others¹⁵ clarifies that sons living on their father's property as licensees must vacate upon notice of termination, underscoring that they do not have an inherent right to remain. Thus, these legal precedents collectively reinforce the Senior Citizens Act’s objective to safeguard senior citizens' rights while balancing it with the protective measures under the D.V. Act, 2005.

¶172

The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will prevail over all other Acts, ensuring the protection and wellbeing of senior citizens. As highlighted in various judgments, the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 allows for the eviction of children or relatives to safeguard the rights of senior citizens. The Court's interpretation consistently emphasizes the harmonious application of both the D.V. Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act,

¶173

15 CWP.1365 of 2015

¶174

¶175

2007, ensuring comprehensive protection for

¶176

vulnerable individuals within family dynamic

¶177

In the present case, there is no dispute

¶178

between the son and his wife. Therefore, the daughter-in-law is not an aggrieved person under the D.V. Act, 2005. The son is residing as a licensee in his

¶179

father's house, and the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005 cannot be invoked by the daughter-in-law in this context. In the present case on hand, the facts are diagonally opposite to the facts in the case cited supra. In the present case on hand, this Court is concerned with father’s need for the property to maintain himself and his wife and therefore, senior citizens right over the property holds significant weight especially, considering his retirement and financial needs. Moreover, the son’s financial stability as evident by his engineering profession, diminishes the urgency for him to retain possession of the

¶180

¶181

property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that daughter-in-law’s invocation of D.V.Act, 2005 seemingly in collusion with her husband, to thwart eviction, lacks merit.

¶182

In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment, what emerges is that an aggrieved women is given protection under the provisions of D.V. Act, 2005. The primary object of D.V.Act, 2005, is to give protection to women against any form of domestic violence as outlined in Kunapareddy Alias NookalaShanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another (supra).

¶183

In the present case on hand, the relationship between son and his wife Sony is cordial.

¶184

The records also reveal that both have engaged a common counsel and are contesting the eviction order

¶185

¶186

secured by BalasahebPatil under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶187

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra¹⁶ while examining the definition of “shared household” in Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act, 2005 together with the sweep of Section 17 construed that aggrieved wife can claim any household as shared household where she is living or at any point of time lived together with her husband. But it is against all cannons of law that there will be encroachment on the proprietary interest of a third party in the property owned by him/her simply because the aggrieved wife had occasion to live and occupy that property either jointly or singly. Without declaring Section 2(s) as ultra vires, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the true meaning of the above provision is that any household in which the

¶188

16(2007) 3 SCC 169

¶189

¶190

aggrieved wife’s husband has a right, title and interest and the wife’s right of residence on the ground that there is an ill-treatment is not absolute.

¶191

If the choice is between two statutes and warrants interpretation, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation,

¶192

the Court should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the broader construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.

¶193

From the records what emerges is that daughter-in-law has not placed any material to substantiate that she is an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act, 2005. The daughter-in-law also cannot seek protection and assert her right to reside in the disputed residential

¶194

¶195

house by taking benefit of proviso to definition 2(q) of the D.V.Act, 2005.

¶196

This Court has carefully examined the provisions of both the Acts. In the present set of facts, this Court is more than satisfied that Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has an overriding effect as per Section 3. This Section gives Senior Citizens Act, 2007 a precedent over other inconsistent laws allowing senior citizens to seek eviction of their children or relative, if necessary. The Tribunal’s authority to order eviction under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is further supported by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner (supra), which clearly underscores the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 broad protective measures for senior citizens.

¶197

In the light of statutory framework and judicial precedents, this Court is inclined to uphold the

¶198

¶199

eviction order issued by the Senior Citizens Tribunal. The relief sought under the D.V. Act, 2005 by daughter-in-law (Sony) cannot supersede the eviction order as the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has an overriding statutory authority in the present set of facts. The right created in favour of aggrieved person under the provisions of D.V. Act, 2005 is not an absolute right. The overall facts and circumstances in the present case on hand speaks in volume against the son and daughter-in-law. The son has clearly set up his wife. This Court is more than satisfied that daughter-in-law’s invocation of D.V. Act, 2005, seemingly in collusion with her husband and the challenge to the eviction order passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal by the daughter-in-law on the premise that her petition filed under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 23 of D.V. Act, 2005 is pending consideration is also misconceived.

¶200

¶201

This Court is also more than satisfied that

¶202

the parties to the proceedings are affluent and are financially sound. Son is a qualified engineer and has sufficient income to support himself and his wife. The effect of playing fraud upon the Court has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya vs. Jagannath¹⁷ . The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment held that in such cases where false cases are filed, the discretion vests with the Court to summarily throw out such person at any stage of the litigation.

¶203

17AIR 1994 SC 853

¶204

¶205

Regarding maintainability of 482 petitions seeking quashing of proceedings pending under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act:

¶206

The present case revolves around the contentious issue of whether petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash proceedings under the D.V. Act, 2005, are maintainable. The respondents, specifically the son and daughter-in-law, have vehemently contested the maintainability of these petitions. Their counsel relies heavily on the Supreme Court's decision

¶207

in Shyamlal Devda and Others vs. Parimala¹⁸ , arguing that the Madras High Court's Full Bench judgment in Arun Daniel vs. Suganya¹⁹ , which supports the respondents' position, was incorrectly deemed per incuriam. According to them, various High Courts, including Bombay, have consistently upheld

¶208

18(2020) 3 SCC 14

¶209

19(2022) SCC Online Mad 5435

¶210

¶211

the maintainability of Section 482 petitions against

¶212

D.V. Act, 2005 proceedings.

¶213

In considering the arguments presented,

¶214

this Court has given careful consideration to the facts and legal principles at hand. It finds that the Supreme Court's decision in Shyamlal Devda(supra) primarily focused on a different aspect of law and did not directly address the issue of maintainability of Section 482 petitions challenging proceedings under the D.V. Act, 2005. Hence, reliance placed on Shyamlal Devda(supra) by the respondents' counsel regarding the inapplicability of the Madras High Court's judgment is not persuasive.

¶215

Contrary to the respondents' contention, the Madras High Court's Full Bench judgment in Arun

¶216

Daniel vs. Suganya(supra) analyzed the specific provisions and nature of relief sought under the D.V. Act, 2005 comprehensively. It concluded that while

¶217

¶218

Sections 17 to 23 of the Act provide civil remedies to aggrieved parties, any challenge to these proceedings should be through a writ petition under Article 227, limited to cases of patent lack of jurisdiction by the lower courts. This interpretation underscores the quasi-civil nature of the remedies provided under the Act.

¶219

The D.V.Act, 2005 represents a significant legislative effort to address domestic abuse comprehensively, going beyond traditional criminal remedies like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It aims to empower Courts to issue various civil orders, including protection orders and monetary reliefs, which are distinct from criminal sanctions under the Act.

¶220

Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the D.V.Act, 2005 delineate these civil remedies, emphasizing the Act's intent to provide relief and

¶221

¶222

protection to victims within domestic relationships. This statutory framework supplements existing laws without derogating from their provisions, as explicitly stated under Section 36 of the Act.

¶223

Therefore, considering the legislative intent and the specific provisions of the D.V. Act,2005, this

¶224

Court finds that petitions filed under Section 482 challenging proceedings under the Act are not maintainable. Such challenges would be more appropriately addressed through a writ petition under Article 227, limited to cases where there is a clear lack of jurisdiction by the lower courts.

¶225

Conclusion:

¶226

(a) In light of the presented facts and relevant

¶227

legal precedents, it is evident that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the D.V.Act, 2005 must be

¶228

harmoniously interpreted to ensure that neither Act's

¶229

¶230

provisions are unjustly negated. This case involves the application of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, specifically the father's right to use his property for his maintenance and that of his wife.

¶231

(b) Relevance of Provisions and Precedents:

¶232

The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is primarily designed to protect the rights and dignity of senior citizens, ensuring they can live a peaceful and secure life. The Act empowers tribunals to order the eviction of children or relatives who fail to maintain their parents. This protection is paramount, particularly in cases where the senior citizen's right to maintenance and peaceful living is at stake, as emphasized in Aditya Gupta v. Narendra Gupta (supra) and Manmohan Singh v. UT Chandigarh(supra).

¶233

¶234

The D.V. Act, 2005, on the other hand, is designed to protect women from abuse and harassment within domestic relationships, allowing them to seek various civil remedies. In Vanita v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors²⁰ , the Court underscored the importance of ensuring that a woman's right to reside in her shared household is not unjustly compromised by the provisions of the SCA.

¶235

¶236

In Vanita v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. (supra), the son had transferred property to his father to avoid proceedings initiated by his wife under the D.V. Act, 2005. The Court held that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and D.V. Act, 2005 must be interpreted harmoniously, ensuring that the woman's

¶237

20 AIR Online 2020 SC 897

¶238

¶239

right to reside in the shared household is not undermined.

¶240

(d) In the present case, there is no dispute

¶241

between the son and his wife, indicating that the daughter-in-law is not an aggrieved person under the D.V.Act, 2005. The son's attempt to nullify the eviction order passed by the tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by having his wife initiate proceedings under the D.V. Act, 2005 is an apparent misuse of the Act's provisions. The son is residing as a licensee in his father's house, and therefore, the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005 cannot be invoked by the daughter-in-law to challenge the eviction order.

¶242

(e) The Court must consider that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 objective is to protect senior citizens' rights, including their right to maintenance and peaceful living. The son's financial stability and professional standing, as an engineer employed in a

¶243

¶244

private company, further emphasize the necessity for the father to utilize his property for his and his wife's sustenance.

¶245

(f) The Court's interpretation consistently

¶246

emphasizes the harmonious application of both the D.V.Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ensuring comprehensive protection for vulnerable individuals within family dynamics. In the present case, the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will prevail, ensuring the protection and well-being of senior citizens. The father's right to use his property for his maintenance and that of his wife is paramount, and the son's attempt to use the D.V. Act, 2005 to nullify the eviction order is not permissible. The son, residing as a licensee, must vacate the property to ensure the father's right to peaceful living and maintenance is upheld.

¶247

¶248

(g) A petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶249

CrPC to challenge the proceedings initiated under the D.V. Act, 2005 is not maintainable, as established in the case of Arun Daniel &Ors. v. Suganya(supra). The Court in this case clarified that the reliefs granted under Sections 17-23 of the D.V.Act, 2005 are civil in nature, designed to protect women from domestic violence by providing various civil remedies. These include residence orders, protection orders, and monetary reliefs. If there is a breach of these orders, it can be addressed under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, 2005 which prescribes penalties for such violations.

¶250

(h) The use of Section 482 of the CrPC, which allows the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, is not appropriate for challenging the merits of D.V.Act, 2005 proceedings. Instead, the remedy lies in filing a

¶251

¶252

writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This provision can be invoked to challenge D.V. Act, 2005, proceedings only on the grounds of a patent lack of jurisdiction or a manifest error in the exercise of jurisdiction.

¶253

(i) In essence, the distinction lies in the nature of the relief sought and the appropriate legal remedy available. Section 482 of the CrPC is meant for addressing the abuse of Court processes and cannot be used to question the civil nature of D.V. Act, 2005 orders. The proper recourse is a writ petition under Article 227, ensuring that challenges to D.V. Act proceedings are based on jurisdictional grounds rather than substantive disputes over the orders themselves. This ensures a clear and orderly process for

¶254

¶255

addressing grievances related to the D.V. Act, 2005 maintaining the integrity of both the Act and the judicial process.

¶256

In light of the statutory framework and judicial precedents, this Court upholds the eviction order issued by the Senior Citizen Tribunal. The reliefs sought under the D.V. Act, 2007 by daughter-in-law will not supersede the eviction order, as the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has overriding statutory authority.

¶257

The Court dismisses WP No. 7470/2021 and WP No. 7539/2021, confirming the validity of the eviction order dated March 30, 2021. The temporary status quo orders granted in April 2021 were vacated, and Anil Kumar and his family are directed to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of this judgment. Failure to comply with this directive would result in appropriate legal consequences. For the

¶258

¶259

foregoing reasons this Court passes the following

¶260

order:

¶261

ORDER

¶262

(i) WP No. 7470/2021 is dismissed.

¶263

(ii) WP No. 7539/2021 is dismissed.

¶264

(iii) The eviction order dated March 30, 2021, passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal, is upheld.

¶265

(iv) The 482 petitions in Crl.P.No.4818/2020 and Crl.P.No.5479/2020 are dismissed as not maintainable: A writ under Article 227 is only maintainable in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction.

¶266

(v) Anil Kumar (petitioner in W.P.No.7470/2021 and his wife and children (petitioners in W.P.No.7539/2021) are hereby directed to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of this judgment.

¶267

Sd/JUDGE

¶268

Balasaheb Patil v. Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Patil v. Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.Nagaraj S/O.K.Channabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Sai Priya Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Devappa Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri Anil Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Sony @Sonia Patil Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Basanagouda Vs Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil