Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Provisions regarding disposal of appeal before Appellate Tribunal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi."
10. The Court firstly takes up the issue relating to the applicability of the decision in S. Vanitha. It may, at the outset be noted that while certain allegations have been leveled with respect to marital discord, no proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20054 were ever instituted by the petitioner. Undisputedly, there is also no order of protection made under the aforesaid enactment in terms of which the right of the petitioner of residence in the shared household may be countenanced and recognised. S. Vanitha was a decision which principally dealt with situations where competing interests and the rights and liabilities of parties as flowing from the PWDV Act and the 2007 Act may come before the Tribunals constituted under the 2007 Act. S. Vanitha exposits the exercise of balancing of interests that must be undertaken by Tribunals in case such a composite dispute comes to be laid before them. The quintessence of S. Vanitha is evident from the following extracts of that decision: -
"38. The above extract indicates that a significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the The PWDV Act Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. 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.
39. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the Civil Courts, under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. However, the over-riding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act 2005. The PWDV Act 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under S.2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act 2005. Section 26 of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present case where the suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007. 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 PWDV Act 2005. In the event that the "aggrieved woman" obtains a relief from a Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, she shall duty- bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act 2005, as per Sub- section (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act 2005. This course of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the PWDV Act 2005- of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realized. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realization."

11. The Court notes that in the absence of any protective order of residence and an allegation having been leveled either against the husband or the senior citizens, the reliance placed on S. Vanitha appears to be clearly misplaced. Regard must also be had to the fact that the concept of a shared household as provisioned for under the PWDV Act, is essentially to secure the right of residence of an estranged wife while litigation is ongoing. The provisions in that regard incorporated in that enactment are essentially to ensure that the wife is not left in a state of destitution and thrown out of the marital home to fend for herself. Those principles cannot be countenanced to extend even to situations where the marriage itself may have come to be annulled, dissolved or where it no longer subsists. The Court bears in mind the admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner has unfortunately passed away and that no issues were borne out of that marriage. Viewed in light of the above, the Court finds that the reliance placed on S. Vanitha is clearly misplaced.