Kerala High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the petitioners- daughter-in-law and her family, challenging the order of the Maintenance Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) which permitted her mother-in-law to reside on the first floor of the same building as that of the petitioners. A Single Judge Bench of Viju Abraham, J., relied on several case laws which interpreted that a daughter-in-law would be included in the term ‘children’ as defined under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior Citizens Act’), and while dismissing the writ petition, allowed the mother-in-law to live in the shared house.
Background:
The daughter-in-law was residing on the ground floor of the shared household along with her parents and relatives. She alleged that her husband had neglected her and their minor children. Her parents-in-law had no other property to reside in, and the subject property originally belonged to the mother-in-law but was transferred in favour of her son as per the settlement deed. The daughter-in-law approached the Judicial Magistrate First-Class (‘JMFC’) alleging domestic violence and seeking protection orders under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) and an interim order dated 05-03-2021 was issued, whereby the mother-in-law and others were restrained from causing any kind of hindrance to the petitioners’ peaceful living in the shared house. The petitioners also filed complaints before the police alleging harassment and ill-treatment.
The mother-in-law approached the Tribunal, with seekign permission to reside on the first floor of the shared house, in which the petitioners were residing on the ground floor. The Tribunal invoking the powers under the Senior Citizens Act, allowed her to reside in the said building and the petitioners were directed not to cause her any mental or physical torture. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, filed the present petition.
Firstly, the petitioners’ counsel contended, relying upon S. Vanitha v. Commr., (2021) 15 SCC 730, that the daughter-in-law’s right to secure a residence in a shared household could not be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act. Secondly, it was submitted that no complaint was maintainable against the daughter-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act as she was not within the ambit of the term ‘children’. And thirdly, it was submitted that if the mother-in-law was allowed to stay in the house where the petitioners were residing based on the order issued under the DV Act, there were chances of her threatening and harassing the daughter-in-law.
The mother-in-law denied the fact of her son’s neglect as alleged by her daughter-in-law and stated that he was working abroad. She admitted the JMFC’s order as issued under the DV Act and contended that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act were not in conflict with the said order. Regarding the said property, she contended that the gift deed in favour of the son was set aside in a suit filed before the Munsif’s Court resulting in her getting the ownership of the house and therefore the petitioners could not object to her residing on the first floor. She also submitted that she had no intention of violating any directions issued by the JMFC as per the provisions of the DV Act.
Analysis and Decision:
It was an admitted fact that the order under the DV Act was issued at a time when the ownership and possession of the building was vested with the son and the daughter-in-law had approached the JMFC alleging harassment and physical abuse against the husband. Further, there was no dispute regarding the fact that the mother-in-law was the original owner of the said property, which had been assigned to her son, and later the gift deed was cancelled.
The Court while rejecting the petitioner’s first contention, observed that the Supreme Court in S Vanitha (supra) held that by an order passed under the Senior Citizens Act, any benefit obtained by an applicant as per the provisions of the DV Act, could not be precluded. However, in the present case, the mother-in-law intended to reside on the first floor and had no objection in the petitioners residing on the ground floor as permitted by JMFC’s order and therefore, the Tribunal’s order would not interfere with the daughter-in-law’s right to have a shared household. The Court cited Pooja Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7112, wherein it was held that the Court must evaluate the nature of relationship between the parties and strike a balance between the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act.
Regarding the petitioner’s second contention, the Court explained that an application for maintenance under the Senior Citizens Act could be filed only against the children or relatives, in case the senior citizen was childless. It was argued that daughter-in-law was not included within the definition of ‘children’ or ‘relative’ as provided in the Act. The Court relied on H. Deepika v. Maintenance Welfare of Parents, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3428, wherein it was held that the daughter-in-law who was in possession of the property would also come within the ambit of the definition of ‘children’ under Section 2(a) of the Senior Citizens Act and explained that if there was a doubt as to whether a person was included in the definition of ‘children’ or ‘relative’, the Court had to take the aid of tools like purposive interpretation and casus omissus to achieve the intended purpose of the enactment. The Court observed that providing a safe shelter or residence to a senior citizen would also come under the purview of ‘maintenance’ in Section 2(b) and ‘welfare’ as per Section 2(k) of the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348, which clarified that the word ‘means’ in a definition was restrictive, while ‘includes’ was expansive. Applying this principle, the Court observed that a purposive interpretation should be given to the word ‘children’ defined under the Senior Citizens Act, especially when the definition started with the word ‘includes’ and concluded that a petition under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act would lie against the daughter-in-law too, otherwise it would result in dragging a senior citizen to undergo the ordeal of regular trial under the Common Law remedies. The Court opined that the Senior Citizens Act was promulgated to provide a statutory basis for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution of India and for matters connected thereto. Thus, the Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the proceeding before the Maintenance Tribunal was not maintainable against the daughter-in-law.
The Court also rejected the petitioners’ final contention and opined that merely upon the apprehension of harassment, the mother-in-law could not be prevented from staying in the residential house, which she herself owned, given that she would be residing on the first floor with a separate building number and a separate staircase. The Court observed that if the daughter-in-law had a specific case that she was unable to reside in the place where she was residing, she could inform the Court concerned about the same and seek an order under Section 19(f) of the DV Act, directing the respondents therein to secure same level of alternate accommodation for her as enjoyed by them in the shared household or to pay rent for the same.
Thus, in view of the above analysis, the Court, while dismissing the writ petition, decided not to interfere with the Tribunal’s order to allow the mother-in-law to reside on the first floor of the shared house.
[Anila v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, WP(C) No. 22270 of 2021, decided on 16-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: H. Praveen, Advocate.
For the Respondents: P. Haridas, Biju Hariharan, Shijimol M. Mathew, P.C. Shijin, Rishikesh Haridas, Roshin Mariam Jacob, Advs.
