AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthiwth. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties.
The present petition challenges the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in Senior Citizen Appeal No. 7/2025-2026 by the Respondent No. 2, namely District Collector, Washim wherein the Petitioner is directed to leave the alleged illegal possession of the self aquired property of the Respondent No. 1, namely Gajanan Dhoble, father-in-law of the Petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of the impugned order.
The facts as emerging from the Petition is as follows:
The marriage of the Petitioner was solemnized with the son of Respondent No.1 on 16.02.2021 at Karanja, Washim, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, Respondent No.1 and his family members demanded dowry, which was allegedly paid by the Petitioner and her father. After the marriage, the Petitioner started residing with her husband and in-laws in the matrimonial home. Soon thereafter, Respondent No.1 and his family members started taunting and humiliating the Petitioner on the ground that the dowry brought by her was inadequate and below their status. She further alleged that she was subjected to continuous harassment and ill-treatment on account of insufficient dowry.
The Petitioner further alleged that Respondent No.1, taking advantage of his position as a District Judge, caused her to be taken to the Police Station and lodged a false complaint against her. Furthermore, she was asked to leave the matrimonial house. She initially left the house along with her husband, but subsequently, her husband returned and left her alone. When the Petitioner thereafter attempted to return to the matrimonial home, she was allegedly not permitted to enter the premises by Respondent No.1 and her husband and was directed to return to her parental home. The Petitioner has thus alleged that the conduct of her husband and in-laws was part of a concerted effort to oust her from the matrimonial home.
It is further the case of the Petitioner that, in March 2023, she again attempted to return to the matrimonial home. At that time, Respondent No.1 and his wife allegedly locked the house and went outstation for medical reasons. The Petitioner approached the Police and complained about the said circumstances. According to her, the Police informed her that, being her matrimonial home, she could enter the premises. Accordingly, the Petitioner entered the house. Thereafter, when Respondent No.1 and his wife returned to their residence at Washim and found the Petitioner inside the house, they allegedly abused and assaulted her and forcibly drove her out of the premises. According to the Petitioner, the said incident marked the culmination of the matrimonial dispute between her and her in-laws.
Aggrieved by the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment, the Petitioner lodged First Information Report bearing Crime No.348/2023 dated 14.03.2023 at Police Station, Washim, against her husband and in-laws for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the Petitioner that, as a counterblast to the said criminal proceedings, Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Senior Citizen’ ACt). An application dated 03.04.2023 was accordingly filed by Respondent No.1, which came to be registered as Senior Citizen Case No.1/2023-2.
After hearing the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim passed an order dated 02.06.2023 in Senior Citizen Case No.1/2023-2. By the said order, protection was granted in favour of Respondent No.1; however, the order specifically directed Respondent No.1 not to dispossess the Petitioner from the premises in question. Prior thereto, the Petitioner had instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being P.W.D.V.A. No.30/2023 before the learned J.M.F.C., Washim on 10.05.2023. By order dated 10.06.2026, the learned Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Petitioner, though her prayer concerning the shared household was not granted. The Petitioner has stated that appropriate proceedings in respect of the said grievance are being pursued before the Competent Court.
Furthermore, Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing Writ Petition No.6809/2024 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 07.01.2026 with liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority under the Senior Citizens Act.
Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, Respondent No.1 preferred Senior Citizen Appeal Case No.7/2025-2026 before Respondent No.2, the District Collector, Washim, on 19.01.2026. After hearing the parties, Respondent No.2, by order dated 03.06.2026, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed the Petitioner to vacate the premises, described as her matrimonial house, within a period of one month from the date of the order.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has approached this Court and seeks relief on the grounds mentioned in the Petition.
I have heard Mr. A.A. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as also, Mr. Swapnil Suresh Shingane, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has a statutory right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,(hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’) irrespective of her having any title or beneficial interest therein. It was contended that the Senior Citizens Act cannot be employed as a means to defeat or circumvent the Petitioner's right of residence. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., AIR (2021) 15 SC 730, wherein the two enactments were directed to be harmoniously construed.
Learned Counsel further submits that the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 under the Senior Citizens Act were an abuse of the process of law, as no relief of maintenance was sought and the proceedings were primarily aimed at securing the Petitioner's eviction from the matrimonial home. It was contended that Respondent No.1, his wife and the Petitioner's husband were acting in concert to oust the Petitioner, particularly in view of the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and the connected proceedings before the High Court. According to the learned Counsel, the material facts regarding the pending domestic violence proceedings, interim maintenance order and the protective order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer were either ignored or suppressed before the Appellate Authority.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was based upon due consideration of the relevant facts and had appropriately protected the Petitioner from dispossession during the pendency of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Learned Counsel submitted that Respondent No.1, being a retired District Judge, was fully conversant with the legal position and yet invoked the Senior Citizens Act for a purpose beyond its object and scope.
Lastly, learned Counsel submits that forcible eviction of the Petitioner would deprive her of shelter, security and dignity and would cause irreparable prejudice which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms. It was urged that the right to residence forms an integral facet of a dignified life protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Hono’ble Supreme Court in order to support the submissions made by the Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414
S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others (2021) 15 SCC 730
Rival contentions fall for my consideration.
Having gone through the record, it is seen that the initial application under Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act was filed against two Respondents, one of which is the present Petitioner and the other was the son of the senior citizen, i.e. the present Respondent No. 1. It can further be seen that the son of the senior citizen, who is not a party in the present Petition, has chosen to take a neutral stand and has submitted that necessary orders be passed by the Competent Authority. Thus, the fact remains that the relief which was claimed and granted by the Competent Authority was primarily against Respondent No. 2 therein, i.e. the present Petitioner (daughter-in-law). It can also be seen that in the appeal which ensued, the said son of Respondent No. 1 continued to take a neutral stand. It was the present Petitioner, i.e. Respondent No. 2 in the appeal, who has chosen to oppose the contentions made in the appeal. Thus, the fact remains that it was primarily the present Petitioner, that is original Respondent No. 2, who has chosen to oppose the reliefs claimed by Respondent No. 1 herein.
After hearing the parties, the matter was closed for judgment on 13.08.2026. However, it was again listed on 18.08.2026, when it occurred to the Court that the parties need to be heard regarding the maintainability of the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act against a daughter-in-law in light of definitions of "children" and "relative" in Section 2(a) and 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act. The matter was elaborately heard at length, in which the parties advanced their oral submissions.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that such an objection was not taken before the authority as also the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that if such an objection is not taken, the objection cannot be tested in the present writ petition. However, I am not inclined to accede to this submission, since it is a question which emanates from the provisions of the Schedule and can be deciphered from the record itself.
The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 takes support of a judgment of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Anila and others vs. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5551, and more particularly, paragraph No 12 thereof, wherein learned Single Judge of the said Court by taking into consideration the doctrine of purposive interpretation as also the doctrine of casus omissus held that the term "children" defined under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would also include the daughter-in-law also. He candidly submits that even though there is no authoritative pronouncement in this regard by this Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court, a purposive interpretation of the Act, in light of the statement of objects and reasons for which the statute was enacted, has to be looked into.
Having considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, and having gone through the judgments cited supra, and more particularly the judgment of the Kerala High Court, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to relegate the matter to the Competent Authority to decide the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein against the Petitioner in light of the definitions of "children" and "relative," as also the judgment of the Kerala High Court stated supra.
In my view, it would be the Competent Authority who alone would endeavor into such exercise, since no such objection was taken before the said authority. The order of remand is being passed since admittedly no such objection, which according to me goes to the root of the matter, was not taken before the authority. In that view of the matter, following order is passed:
ORDER
Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii) The order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, in Senior Citizen Case No. 1/2023-24, as also the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector, Washim in Senior Citizen Appeal No. 7/2025-26, are quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter is relegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, for deciding the Senior Citizen Case No. 1/2023-24 afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove.
Writ Petition is disposed of as such.