{"id":361,"date":"2020-12-17T11:10:22","date_gmt":"2020-12-17T11:10:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/?p=361"},"modified":"2020-12-17T11:11:15","modified_gmt":"2020-12-17T11:11:15","slug":"senior-citizens-act-cant-be-used-to-evict-daughter-in-law-from-shared-household-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/2020\/12\/17\/senior-citizens-act-cant-be-used-to-evict-daughter-in-law-from-shared-household-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"SENIOR CITIZENS ACT CAN’T BE USED TO EVICT DAUGHTER-IN-LAW FROM SHARED HOUSEHOLD- SUPREME COURT"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"BEST<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The\nSupreme Court on 15th<\/sup> December 2020 held that the Maintenance and\nWelfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be interpreted or\ndeployed to evict a woman from her shared household, which she is otherwise\nentitled to under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme\nCourt set aside the Karnataka High Court’s September 2019 order, which directed\na woman in Bengaluru to be evicted from the house belonging to her\nmother-in-law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A bench, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, observed that Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court\nobserved that domestic violence act is to provide for and recognise the rights\nof women to secure housing and to recognise the right of a woman to reside in a\nmatrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or\nright in the shared household.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Allowing the\nSenior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all\nsituations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a\nshared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the\nobject and purpose sought to be achieved in enacting the latter\nlegislation,” Apex Court said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Highlighting on\nharmony of both Acts, the bench said the law protecting the interest of senior\ncitizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the\nmercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act,\n2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The right of a\nwoman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be\ndefeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting\nthe summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007,” said the bench\nin the verdict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The top court allowed a woman’s appeal with Rs 25,000 cost and\nrestrained her in-laws and husband from evicting her from the premises. The\ncourt also restrained in-laws from selling the house for one year, to allow the\nwoman to pursue remedies under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Apex Court thus set aside the Karnataka High Court’s September 17, 2019 order, which directed a woman to evict the residential house belonging to her mother-in-law in north Bengaluru, Karnataka. The High Court had observed the woman’s estranged husband is liable for maintenance and shelter and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, passed under the Senior Citizens Act. “Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws or that her estranged spouse is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005,” the Apex Court said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court on 15th December 2020 held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be interpreted or deployed to evict a woman from her shared household, which she is otherwise entitled to under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka HighRead more about SENIOR CITIZENS ACT CAN’T BE USED TO EVICT DAUGHTER-IN-LAW FROM SHARED HOUSEHOLD- SUPREME COURT<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethicallegal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":365,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361\/revisions\/365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}