Senior Citizens Act | Kerala HC Expands Definition Of 'Children' To Include Daughter-In-Law, Allows Mother-In-Law To Live In Shared House

Dismissing a woman's plea against an order permitting her mother-in-law to reside in a portion of the shared family house, the Kerala High Court observed that a purposive interpretation should be given to the term "children" under Senior Citizens Act to also include "daughter-in-law", depending on the facts and circumstances. The dispute arose when the petitioner–daughter-in-law, and her family, who reside on the ground floor, opposed the Maintenance tribunal's directive that allowed the respondent mother-in-law to occupy the first floor of the same house.Petitioner cited an interim protection order passed under section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 that restrained the respondent from interfering in her peaceful living.The question before the Court was whether a senior citizen could invoke the Senior Citizen Act against a daughter-in-law, and does such an order come in conflict with the rights granted under the Domestic Violence Act.Justice Viju Abraham referred to a 2020 decision of the Telangana High Court on who would be covered under the term children under the Senior Citizens Act and said:"It is pertinent to note that the definition of the word “children” in Section 2(a) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 mandates that “children” includes son, daughter, grandson and grand daughter but does not include a minor. The Telangana High Court in Deepika H.'s case while considering a contention as to who all will come within the word “children” has held that if there is a doubt as to whether a person is included in the definition of “children” or “relative” in the Senior Citizens Act, the Court has to take the aid of tools like purposive interpretation and casus omissus to achieve the intended purpose of the enactment. In view of the objects and reasons of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and to achieve the intendment of the enactment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it was also held that the daughter-in-law has squat over the property of the parents-in-law and made them to reside in a rented accommodation, the daughter-in-law would also come within the sweep of the definition of “children” and an application for maintenance will be perfectly maintainable before the Maintenance Tribunal". Looking to the facts of the present case the high court observed that the only impediment which prevents the mother-in-law from residing in the building is that the petitioner daughter-in-law is objecting to it. "therefore only if an order is passed against the 1st petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law of the 2nd respondent, that the 2nd respondent would be permitted to be accommodated in the said building.Therefore, a purposive interpretation should be given to the word “children” defined under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 especially when the definition of “children” starts with the word ' includes' son, daughter, etc., and therefore, a petition under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act 2007 while lie against the daughter-in-law also, who is the petitioner herein, in the light of the facts and circumstances available in the present case, where the petitioner is in possession of the property. If not, as held in Deepika H.'s case cited supra, the same would result in dragging a senior citizen to undergo the ordeal of regular trial under the Common Law remedies, which is time-consuming and expensive, especially when the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 itself was enacted to avoid such time time consuming process and to provide a simple and inexpensive speedy remedy to help people who are in their old age". The Petitioner contended that the complaint was not maintainable against her as per the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Relying on Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (2021), it was submitted that the right of women to secure a residence in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by an order under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The respondents submitted that the respondent mother-in-law and her husband have no other property/building to reside and the property originally belonged to her and the same was transferred in favour of her son by a gift deed which was later revoked. The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Vanitha's case has only held that the overriding effect of remedy sought under section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It had not held that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be invoked when there is a protection order granted as per the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court referred to Delhi High Court's decision in Pooja Mehta and Ors v Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (2024) where it was observed that the Court must evaluate the nature of relationship between the parties while considering the balancing...

Senior Citizens Act | Kerala HC Expands Definition Of 'Children' To Include Daughter-In-Law, Allows Mother-In-Law To Live In Shared House

Anamika MJ

Tags