an application filed by her father-in-law. There was matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and it was the case of the daughter-in-law that at the instance 9 of her husband, her fatherinlaw resorted to malicious proceeding with the sole intent to evict her from the suit premises. She claimed that proceedings were collusive in nature and was an attempt by her husband and fatherin- law to evict her from her matrimonial home. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which provides for various protection to a woman in juxtaposition to the provisions of the Act of 2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that a significant object of the legislation under the Act of (Domestic Violence Act) is to provide for and recognize the rights of woman to secure housing and to recognize the rights of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a share household, whether or not she had any title or right in the shared household and the law protecting the interest of senior citizen is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the Act of 2005 cannot be ignored. Both sets of legislation have to be harmoniously construed. The right of a woman to secure a residence, and 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 Act of 2007. It is under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, an interference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of eviction passed by the Tribunal against daughter-in-law, namely, S. Vanitha (supra) in that case. The facts of the present case are not the same and, therefore, the principle laid down in the case of S. Vanitha (supra) would not be applicable.
