SMT. S. VANITHA versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 15-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
SMT. S. VANITHA
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020)
DECEMBER 15, 2020
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007:
2(b) and 3 – Petition under the Act – By respondent Nos. 2
and 3 seeking eviction of their daughter-in-law (appellant) from
their house – Plea of appellant that she had been living in the house
as her matrimonial residence and that her husband (respondent
No. 4) had deserted her and their daughter – The authorities
concerned directed the appellant to vacate the house – Writ Petition
– Single Judge of High Court held that the appellant had no cause
of action against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they owned the house
and that her right to claim shelter lied only against her husband –
Division Bench of High Court affirmed the judgment of Single Judge
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The premises in question
constitute a ‘shared household’ within meaning of s. 2(s) of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Object of
2005 Act is to recognize right of woman to reside in a shared
household – Both pieces of legislation are intended to deal with
salutary aspects of public welfare and interest – Both the Acts are
special Acts – Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously
construed – The right of a woman to secure a residence order for a
shared household under the 2005 Act cannot be defeated by
securing an order of eviction under the 2007 Act. The over-riding
effect for the remedies sought under 2007 Act cannot preclude all
other competing remedies under 2005 Act – It would be appropriate
for a Tribunal u/s. 2007 Act to grant such remedies of maintenance
as envisaged u/s 2(b) of 2007 Act that do not result in obviating
competing remedies under other statutes – The Tribunal under 2007
Act should appropriately mould reliefs after noticing competing
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 1057
1057
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
claims of the parties claiming under 2005 and 2007 Acts – The
aggrieved woman after obtaining a relief for shared household from
the Tribunal constituted under 2007 Act, is duty bound to inform
the Magistrate under 2005 Act as per s.26(3) of 2005 Act – This
course of action would ensure speedy relief to both the groups –
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ss. 2(s),
17, 26(3) and 36.
Interpretation of statutes:
Two special Acts – Prevailing effect – Held: Where both the
Acts contain non-obstante clauses, later Act will prevail – However,
in the event of conflict between the Special Acts the dominant
purpose of  both the statutes have to be analysed to ascertain which
one would prevail over the other – The primary effort of the
interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise.
Definition clause – Interpretation of – Held: Where the
definition of an expression adopts ‘means and includes’ stipulation,
it is intended to be exhaustive.
Words and Phrases:
‘Shared household’ – Meaning of, in the context of Prevention
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On construing the provisions of sub-Section (2)
of section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act 2007, it is evident that it
applies to a situation where a senior citizen has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is
transferred. The situation in the present case is that the eviction
was sought of the daughter-in-law, i.e. the appellant. The land,
where the house has been constructed, was originally purchased
by the son of the applicants who are seeking eviction of their
daughter-in-law. The son had purchased the property a few months
before his marriage to the appellant. He had subsequently
transferred the property by a registered sale deed to his father
and the fact that it was for the same consideration after the lapse
of several years is of significance. The father, in turn, executed a
gift deed in favor of his spouse. The appellant has asserted that
she had been living in the house, as her matrimonial residence,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
until the application was filed. Her spouse has (according to her)
deserted her and their minor daughter and left them in the lurch.
The electricity to the premises was disconnected for non-payment
of dues. Their daughter has sought admission to an engineering
degree course however her father- Fourth respondent has not
provided any fina

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.