Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Used As Weapon To Frustrate Existing DV Act Protection To Daughter-In-Law: Bombay High Court
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court ruled that an application by a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007 cannot be used to frustrate the judicial orders or harass a party protected by a court order.
“It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under such benevolent legislation [the 2007 Act] must be prosecuted bonafidely, with a bonafide intention, and for a bonafide object,” Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar observed, while dismissing the petition seeking eviction of his daughter-in-law.
The petition was filed challenging the orders of the first authority, sub-divisional officer, and the appellate authority, district collector, under the 2007 Act. Both authorities had rejected the petitioner's application seeking to evict his daughter-in-law from a house where she was allowed to stay pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005 proceedings.
“The protection awarded u/s 4 r/w 5 of the Act of 2007 must not be used as a weapon. In this context, the right under the 2007 Act is not absolutely unfettered. The provisions cannot be used to frustrate the orders passed by the competent Courts or to harass the party who is otherwise protected by a judicial order under other legislature,” the Court held.
The Court observed that the proceedings initiated by the 70-year-old petitioner were not bonafide and could not be termed “due procedure of law”.
It added, “To frustrate the claims raised by his daughter-in-law and two minor granddaughters, the present proceedings seem to have lodged by the petitioner. Certainly, the object of the legislation in the Act of 2007 does not prescribe for this.”
The Court noted that the petitioner's application, seeking direction to the daughter-in-law to vacate the House and hand over possession to him, was “nothing but an attempt to circumvent the judicial orders of protection to the Respondent no.1 and her minor daughters.”
The Court rejected the petitioner's submission that he had to leave the house due to the threats from his daughter-in-law. The Court took into account the fact that the petitioner owned more than one property in Shirpur, and observed that his “personal reasons” for shifting to a rental premises were not justifiable.
“Mere allegation that due to threatening by Respondent no.1, the Petitioner had to leave the Writ House is of no avail to the Petitioner. It is apparent that this is a cooked story,” the Court said.
Justice Kadethankar referred to the Supreme Court ruling in S. Vanitha v. M. Vannankutty (2021) 15 SCC 730, wherein the Apex Court has held that the 2007 Act and the PWDV Act of 2005 must be harmoniously construed and said, “Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence 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 Senior Citizens Act, 2007.”
Finding the petition to be a “proxy petition” filed at the behest of the petitioner's son, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The Court allowed the daughter-in-law to then withdraw the amount for herself and her two minor daughters.
Background
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between Respondent No. 2 (son) and Respondent No. 1 (daughter-in-law) of the petitioner, Devba Pauladsing Girase, which led to multiple litigations involving family members.
In 2018, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shirpur, passed an order under Section 12 of the PWDV Act proceedings, directing payment of monthly maintenance to the first respondent and her two minor daughters, and allowed her to stay at the matrimonial home. Appeals against this order were subsequently dismissed by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court.
Later, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the 2007 Act before the sub-divisional officer, Shirpur, seeking possession of the house and eviction of the daughter-in-law. Both the SDO and the Appellate Authority, district collector of Dhule, rejected his application, leading to the present writ petition
Case: Devba Pauladsing Girase vs Kavita Himmatsing Girase & others
WRIT PETITION NO. 11433 OF 2023