Proper of a girl to remain in a shared matrimonial family can’t be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting the abstract process underneath the Senior Residents Act 2007, the Supreme Court docket mentioned Tuesday.
The highest courtroom mentioned object of the Safety of Ladies from Home Violence Act 2005 (PWDV) is to offer and recognise the rights of girls to safe housing and reside in a matrimonial house or a shared family, whether or not or not she has any title or proper within the shared family.
“Permitting the Senior Residents Act 2007 to have an overriding pressure and impact in all conditions, regardless of competing entitlements of a girl to a proper in a shared family throughout the that means of the PWDV Act would defeat the article and function which the Parliament sought to attain in enacting the latter laws,” a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud mentioned.
The highest courtroom mentioned the regulation defending the curiosity of senior residents is meant to make sure that they aren’t left destitute, or on the mercy of their
youngsters or kinfolk.
“Equally, the aim of the PWDV Act 2005 can’t be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Each units of legislations must be harmoniously construed.
“Therefore the suitable of a girl to safe a residence order in respect of a shared family can’t be defeated by the easy expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the abstract process underneath the Senior Residents Act 2007.,” the bench, additionally comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, mentioned.
The apex courtroom was listening to an enchantment filed by a girl towards an order of the Karnataka Excessive Court docket which requested her to vacate the matrimonial home.
The daddy-in-law and mother-in-law had filed an utility underneath the provisions of the Upkeep and Welfare of Dad and mom and Senior Residents Act 20071, and sought her daughter-in-law’s eviction from a residential home in North Bengaluru.
The Division Bench of the excessive courtroom by its judgment of September 17, 2019 held that the go well with premises belonged to the mother-in-law (the Second respondent) of the appellant and the treatment of the appellant for upkeep and shelter lies solely towards her estranged husband.