Smt. S Vanitha
v.
Deputy Commissioner, Bengluru, Urban Distt.
A senior citizen couple filed an application under the provision of the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 seeking the eviction of their daughter-in-law and granddaughter from the residential house before the Assistant Commissioner of Karnataka. The application filed by the couple was allowed. The aggrieved party filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the same is allowed and the authority directed the appellant to vacate the premises. The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian constitution before the division of single bench. The division of High Court held that the premises belonged to the mother-in-law and remedy for maintenance and shelter of a wife lies with the husband and property belonged to husband. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the authority under the Senior Citizen Act, 2007, the appellant moved this court under Article 136 of the Indian constitution.
FACTS
The appellant and fourth respondent got married in May, 2002. After sometime, disputes arose between the parties and the wife alleged that her husband harassed her for dowry and compelled her to file a suit for partition against her father. Later on, she withdrew the suit after her husband alleged to desert her for being in a relationship with another woman. The husband of the appellant filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act 1956. The subject matter in dispute was purchased by the husband before the marriage and the appellant contended that her father financed a portion to that property.
After four year, the husband of the appellant sold the property to his father at the same price he purchased, and the father of the husband constructed the house and gifted the same to his wife. The mother-in-law in 2010 filed a suit for permanent injunction against her daughter –in-law restraining her from interfering in the possession of the property. The proceedings are still pending. On the other hand, petition filed by the husband was allowed. The wife had filed an appeal against the decree of dissolution of marriage and simultaneously, filed an application for maintenance.
In 2016, the couple filed an application before the assistant commissioner of Bangluru under the provisions of Senior Citizen Act, 2007, claiming the eviction of the appellant from the premises, an amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance from their son and an amount of 25,000 as the legal expenses. The appellant on the application contended that the allegations are malicious and it was the common intentions of all the respondents to evict her from her matrimonial house. She further objected upon the jurisdiction and contended that the act provided for the maintenance to the senior citizens or parents but no provisions for eviction. On this the assistant commissioner held that the property is the self-acquired property of the respondent no. 3 and directed her to vacate premises and as for maintenance, it is the obligation of the husband to do so and directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 as monthly maintenance to his parents. As for divorce proceedings, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 28 of HMA. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of trail court and ordered for fresh proceeding.
Held
The court concluded that the claim of appellant that the premises constituted a shared household within the meaning of PWDC Act, 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary power exercised by Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The respondent number 2 and 3 are free to file application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizen Act for alteration in maintenance allowances. The High Court’s order of eviction has been set aside and the appellant is left to pursue her remedy and there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly disposing the appellant from the premises or creating any interest or title in the favor of any third party. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and entitled the appellant to quantify Rs.25000 from the respondents.