# Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-09
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1041 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepali-chopra-deepali-ahuja-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49264
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Civil Law - Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 -
Section 22 - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12,
17, 19 & 26 - Eviction - Daughter-in-law -
Order for - Validity - Petitioner, daughterin-law of respondent no. 6, challenged
eviction order passed by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
allowing
application
of
respondent
no.
6
(mother-in-law),
directing her to vacate premises within 15
days - Petitioner assailed order passed by
District Magistrate, rejecting her appeal
against eviction - Impugned order lacks
any findings on issues raised, with no
consideration or analysis of evidence, nor
any indication of application of mind -
Such cryptic and unreasoned order is
arbitrary
and
unsustainable
-
Even
respondents failed to point out any finding
recorded in favour of respondent no. 6
justifying
eviction
-
A
quasi-judicial
authority, while deciding matters affecting
substantive rights, must address rival
contentions and give reasons for deciding
application - Reasons form foundation of
judicial or quasi-judicial determination,
reflecting due application of mind - In
absence of such reasoning, order passed
by Maintenance Tribunal quashed. (Para
3, 34)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 51,065. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1119

58. In Amrendra Singh v. State of
U.P. and others, MANU/UP/1480/2007 :
2008(1) ADJ 397 (DB), this Court has
declined to interfere in intra Court appeal
with an order of Single Judge even though
legally it was not sustainable since
substantial justice had been done therein
and setting aside order may have resulted in
revival of another pernicious order.

59. In addition to above, it is to be
indicated that as per the judgment passed in
the case of B.R. Nangia (Supra), the
Grantee under the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953,
cannot sublet or transfer the land and also
can not use for the purpose other than it
was granted and admittedly, in the instant
case, the petitioner (Grantee) has already
transferred the land provided to him under
the U.P. Act No. 10 of 1953. Thus, also the
petitioner is not entitled to any protection
by this Court.

60. For the reasons aforesaid, the
petition has no force. It is accordingly,
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1119
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1041 of 2023

Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Khare, Aahuti Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Ashok
Kumar Singh Rakhra, Dilip Kumar Verma,
Jagrit Sharma, Radhika Singh

Civil Law - Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 -
Section 22 - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12,
17, 19 & 26 - Eviction - Daughter-in-law -
Order for - Validity - Petitioner, daughterin-law of respondent no. 6, challenged
eviction order passed by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
allowing
application
of
respondent
no.
6
(mother-in-law),
directing her to vacate premises within 15
days - Petitioner assailed order passed by
District Magistrate, rejecting her appeal
against eviction - Impugned order lacks
any findings on issues raised, with no
consideration or analysis of evidence, nor
any indication of application of mind -
Such cryptic and unreasoned order is
arbitrary
and
unsustainable
-
Even
respondents failed to point out any finding
recorded in favour of respondent no. 6
justifying
eviction
-
A
quasi-judicial
authority, while deciding matters affecting
substantive rights, must address rival
contentions and give reasons for deciding
application - Reasons form foundation of
judicial or quasi-judicial determination,
reflecting due application of mind - In
absence of such reasoning, order passed
by Maintenance Tribunal quashed. (Para
3, 34)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. S. Vanitha Vs Commr., 2021 (15) SCC 730,
(Paras 25, 36, 37, 38, 39)

2. Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja, 2021
(1) SCC 414, (Paras 90, 102 to 104, 124, 125)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. )

1. The unsavory controversies borne
out of failed marriage are arising with great
frequency, and the present case is also a
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fallout of the embittered escalation of
dispute between the senior citizens and
their daughter-in-law.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Radhika Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2
and 3 and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 1.

3. The petitioner who is the daughterin-law of respondent no. 6 has sought
shelter of this Court assailing the order of
eviction passed by the Sub Division
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Lucknow
dated
28.12.2022
under
the
provisions
of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Senior Citizen Act,
2007") whereby the application preferred
by respondent no. 6, who is the mother-inlaw of the petitioner has been allowed and
order of eviction has been passed against
the petitioner, asking her to vacate the
premises situated at House No. B/237,
Sector B, Mahanagar, Lucknow within a
period of fifteen days. The petitioner has
also challenged the order dated 08.01.2023,
passed by District Magistrate, Lucknow
whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was previously married to one Sanjay
Chandra and from the said marriage she has
two children, one daughter and one son
aged about 22 and 17 years. It has been
stated that petitioner and Sanjay Chandra
decided to mutually separate and were
granted a decree of mutual divorce by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on
12.08.2010. Subsequently the petitioner
met respondent no. 7 and they started living
together in 2011 and finally got married as
per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The petitioner
alongwith her husband started living on the
ground floor of the house being House No.
B-337, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Lucknow
owned by husband of respondent no 6,
while respondent no. 6 (petitioner's motherin-law) alongwith her husband reside on
the first floor of the same house.

5. That soon after marriage of
petitioner with respondent no. 7 the
relationship became sour and frequent
disputes started erupting between them and
complaints were also lodged by the
petitioner with the Police Commissioner
and suit for divorce was filed by respondent
no. 7 before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow on 29.09.2022, which is
pending consideration. Petitioner on the
other hand filed an application under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from
Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005"),
in October 2022, before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Lucknow
which is pending. She has also filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
before the Family Court, Lucknow.

6. It is in the aforesaid facts that the
petitioner has submitted that respondent no.
6 in collusion with respondent no. 7 have
filed the application under Section 22 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act, 2007"). In the said
proceedings notices were issued to the
petitioner who has filed a written statement
on affidavit denying the allegations made
against
her.
The
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate/Maintenance
Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to "the Maintenance
10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1121
Tribunal"), duly considered the rival
submissions and held that the applicant
therein falls under the definition of "Senior
Citizen" as provided under Section 2(h) of
the Act, 2007 and her husband is the owner
of house situated at B-337, Sector - B,
Mahanagar, Lucknow and her husband is
also aged and ailing and is not getting
regular treatment. The petitioner, who is
the daughter-in-law, is living on the ground
floor and that neither the petitioner nor her
husband i.e. respondent no. 7 are owners of
the said house, but they were only given
permission to live in the said house. Their
behavior subsequently turned hostile and
violent, and they are regularly fighting
amongst themselves and also the petitioner
has started misbehaving with the applicant
and her husband and abusing and assaulting
them.

7. Respondent no. 7 has also filed an
affidavit stating that he is living with his
wife i.e. the petitioner in the said house of
which his father is the owner. He has stated
that due to differences with his wife the suit
for divorce is pending. According to him
the petitioner is of the opinion that
differences between her husband and her
have arisen only because of her mother.
The respondent no. 7 has taken a house on
rent at Sai Heights apartments, Mahanagar,
Lucknow but the petitioner is not willing to
stay with her husband in the said rented
apartment. He has further stated that he is
ready to vacate the disputed premises and
has further stated that in case his wife is
willing, he is ready to take another house
on rent exclusively for her and children's
use.

8. He has further submitted before the
Maintenance
Tribunal
that
disputed
premises belongs to his father. The
petitioner is frequently involved in physical
fight with respondent no. 7. She has also
broken most of the household goods and is
also involved in assaulting his parents. The
petitioner on the other hand blames her inlaws for the breakdown of their marriage.
Respondent no.7 on the request of
petitioner has taken separate three BHK
apartment in Sai Heights, Lucknow. He has
requested his wife to shift in the said house,
but she has refused. It is further stated that
he is ready and willing to take another
house for rent for the petitioner if she
desires.

9. The Maintenance Tribunal after
recording the aforesaid facts has concluded
that respondent no. 7 has shown his
willingness to move out of the house but
the petitioner had shown her reluctance
from vacating the said premises and
accordingly, in exercise of power provided
under rule 21(2) of the Rules, 2014, he has
ordered eviction of petitioner from the
premises in question by means of order
dated 28.12.2022.

10. The petitioner against the order
dated
28.12.2022,
passed
by
the
Maintenance Tribunal, had preferred an
appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007,
which has also been rejected. It was
submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that said appeal was filed on
incorrect legal advice, as there is no
provision for filing an appeal under Section
16 of the Act, 2007 by the daughter-in-law
as the same can be filed by a senior citizen
or a parent.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that under the Act, 2007, a
maintenance order can be passed as
provided for under Section 9 of the Act,
2007 where it is provided that where senior
citizen is being neglected by their children
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or relatives, monthly allowance may be
directed to be paid to such senior citizen.
Chapter V of the Act, 2007, provides for
protection of life and property of the senior
citizens. The said provisions provide for
protection the senior citizen to the extent
that in case they have transferred any
property to their children or relatives who
fail to take care of them after the said
transfer, the Maintenance Tribunal under
Section 23 of the Act, 2007, is empowered
to declare the said transfer to be void. The
right to seek maintenance is provided for in
the act of 2007, but there is no provision
for eviction and consequently submitted
that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary
and deserves to be set aside.

12. It has been further contended that
right of petitioner for residence is also
protected under Section 17 and 19 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act, 2005") and disputed property
would be included in the definition of
"shared household" as prescribed under
Section 2(s) of the Act, 2005. Section 17(2)
of the Act, 2007 which further provides
that aggrieved persons shall not be evicted
or excluded from any part of the property
in dispute and if it is inevitable then it shall
be done by following the procedure as set
up by law and consequently it was
submitted that impugned order is erroneous
and contrary to statutory guarantee of
residence provided in favour of petitioner
under the Act, 2005 and consequently the
impugned order arbitrary having been
passed without application of mind.

13. The writ has been opposed by Sri
Prashant
Chandra,
Senior
Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents. He
has supported the impugned orders by
submitting that respondent No. 6 has been
subjected to physical and mental torture by
the petitioner, and accordingly on her
application
before
the
maintenance
Tribunal, order of eviction has rightly been
passed. In support of his contention he has
relied upon the judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of S. Vanitha Vs.
Commr., 2021 (15) SCC 730 and submitted
that in similar circumstances as occurring
in the present case, it has been held that the
Tribunal is clothed with sufficient powers
to order eviction where it is demonstrated
that the daughter-in-law has physically
tortured the senior citizen and their wellbeing can only be ensured by such an order
of eviction.

14. It was further submitted that the
petitioner does not have an unconditional
right of residence in the shared household.
Respondent No. 7, who is the son of
respondent No. 6, has already taken a house
on rent to accommodate the petitioner. She
had given her consent to move into the said
house but has subsequently declined to
shift. Respondent no. 7 has further offered
to take any other house on rent which the
petitioner desires, but she is insistent on
residing in the disputed premises where she
does not have any right of residence. He
further placed reliance on the judgement of
the Supreme Court in the case of Satish
Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, 2021
(1) SCC 414 to buttress his submission that
right of residence of the petitioner in the
disputed house, as per section 17 of the act
of 2005 is not a indefeasible right, and
under the circumstances as occurring in the
present case, the respondent No. 6 could
legally and validly enforce an order for
eviction as per the provisions of act of
2007.

15. I have heard the counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The root of
10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1123
the present dispute lie in the marital discord
between the petitioner and respondent no.
7. A direct fallout is the strained and
severed relationship between the senior
citizens and their daughter-in-law. The
legislature has sought to protect both the
rights by means of two separate legislations
namely the "Maintenance and Welfare Of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007" to
protect the rights of senior citizens, and on
the other hand "The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" which
ensures protection to the women who are
subjected to domestic violence. On one
hand the Act, 2007 has been enacted
looking into the increasing incidents of
withering of the joint family system
resulting in number of parents not being
maintained by the children as is the normal
practice,
resulting
in
senior
citizens
exposed to emotional trauma and lack of
physical and financial support, while on the
other hand women who are subjected to
domestic violence are sought to be
protected by the act of 2005.

16. The issue which arises for
consideration in the present case is as to
whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case the Maintenance Tribunal could
have validly passed an order of eviction
against the petitioner, without considering
the rights of the daughter-in-law as per the
provisions of the act of 2005?

17. The power of the Maintenance
Tribunal to pass an order of eviction of the
daughter-in-law has been extensively dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Case of S.Vanitha vs Commr., (supra).
Before the Apex Court also it was urged
that under the Act, 2007 there was no
provision for eviction and consequently
such an order cannot be passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal. The Apex Court
after considering the Act, 2007 has
answered the said question which is quoted
herein below for ready reference:-

"25. The substance of sub-section
(2) of Section 23, as submitted by the
second and third respondents, is that the
Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass an
order directing the eviction of the appellant
who is their daughter-in-law. According to
the submission, the power to order eviction
is implicit in the provision guaranteeing a
"right to receive maintenance out of an
estate" and the enforcement of that right.
In supporting the submission, they have
referred to the view which has been taken
by several High Courts, indicating that the
Tribunal may order the eviction of a child
or a relative from the property of a senior
citizen, where there has been a breach of
the obligation to maintain the senior
citizen. The Tribunal under the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority
to order an eviction, if it is necessary and
expedient to ensure the maintenance and
protection of the senior citizen or parent.
Eviction, in other words would be an
incident of the enforcement of the right to
maintenance and protection. However, this
remedy can be granted only after adverting
to the competing claims in the dispute. It is
necessary to recapitulate that 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,
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in turn, executed a gift deed in favour of his
spouse. The appellant has asserted that she
had been living in the house, as her
matrimonial
residence,
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 financial support. The transfers which
took place cannot be viewed in isolation
from
the
context
of
the
ongoing
matrimonial dispute which has taken place.
The issue is whether the appellant as the
daughter-in-law and the minor daughter
could have been ousted in the above
manner."

18. The Apex Court has held that an
order of eviction simplicitor cannot be
passed but same can be passed as an
incidence of enforcement of right to
maintenance and protection. The Apex
Court also considered the fact that woman
has right to residence when she is a victim
of domestic violence and is entitled for
residence
in
"shared
household"
as
described under Section 2(s) of the Act,
2005. Whenever there is a dispute with the
competing claims of senior citizens,
seeking eviction of daughter-in-law on one
hand
and
the
daughter-in-law
being
aggrieved woman and victim of domestic
violence has a right to residence under
Section 17 of the Act, 2005 on the other,
the Court has to consider the rights of both
the parties under the two enactments and
only after considering the competing
claims,
decide
the
issue
of
eviction/residence.
Considering
the
aforesaid judgment this Court is of the
considered opinion that an order of eviction
can be passed by the maintenance Tribunal
if the conditions prescribed by the Apex
Court exist, for which determination the
Tribunal has to consider the rights of the
daughter-in-law also. This aspect of the
matter has also been considered in the case
of S. Vanitha v. Commr., (supra) in the
following terms:-

"36. In this case, both pieces of
legislation are intended to deal with
salutary aspects of public welfare and
interest. The PWDV Act, 2005 was
intended to deal with the problems of
domestic violence which, as the Statements
of Objects and Reasons sets out, "is widely
prevalent
but
has
remained
largely
invisible in the public domain". The
Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates
that while Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
1860 created a penal offence out of a
woman's subjection to cruelty by her
husband or relative, the civil law did not
address its phenomenon in its entirety.
Hence, consistent with the provisions of
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution,
Parliament enacted a legislation which
would "provide for a remedy under the
civil law which is intended to protect the
woman from being victims of domestic
violence and to prevent the occurrence of
domestic violence in the society".

The ambit of the Bill has been
explained thus:

"4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to
provide for the following-

(i) It covers those women who are
or have been in a relationship with the
abuser where both parties have lived
together in a shared household and are
related by consanguinity, marriage or
through a relationship in the nature of
10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1125
marriage
or
adoption.
In
addition,
relationships with family members living
together as a joint family are also included.
Even those women who are sisters, widows,
mothers, single women, or living with the
abuser are entitled to legal protection
under the proposed legislation. However,
whereas the Bill enables the wife or the
female living in a relationship in the nature
of marriage to file a complaint under the
proposed enactment against any relative of
the husband or the male partner, it does not
enable any female relative of the husband
or the male partner to file a complaint
against the wife or the female partner.

(ii) It defines the expression
"domestic violence" to include actual
abuse or threat or abuse that is physical,
sexual, verbal, emotional or economic.
Harassment by way of unlawful dowry
demands to the woman or her relatives
would also be covered under this definition.

(iii) It provides for the rights of
women to secure housing. It also
provides for the right of a woman to
reside in her matrimonial home or shared
household, whether or not she has any
title or rights in such home or household.
This right is secured by a residence
order, which is passed by the Magistrate.

(iv) It empowers the Magistrate
to pass protection orders in favour of the
aggrieved
person
to
prevent
the
respondent from aiding or committing an
act of domestic violence or any other
specified act, entering a workplace or
any other place frequented by the
aggrieved
person,
attempting
to
communicate with her, isolating any
assets used by both the parties and causing
violence to the aggrieved person, her
relatives or others who provide her
assistance from the domestic violence.

(v) It provides for appointment of
Protection Officers and registration of nongovernmental organisations as service
providers for providing assistance to the
aggrieved person with respect to her
medical examination, obtaining legal aid,
safe shelter, etc."

37. The above extract indicates
that a significant object of the legislation is
to provide for and recognise the rights of
women to secure housing and to recognise
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
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.

38. This Court is cognizant that
the
Senior
Citizens
Act,
2007
was
promulgated with a view to provide a
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
overriding 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 Section 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 "26. Relief in other
suits and legal proceedings.-(1) Any
relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20,
21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal
proceeding, before a civil court, family
court or a criminal court, affecting the
aggrieved person and the respondent
whether such proceeding was initiated
before or after the commencement of this
Act.(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section
(1) may be sought for in addition to and
along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or
legal proceeding before a civil or criminal
court.(3) In case any relief has been
obtained by the aggrieved person in any
proceedings other than a proceeding under
this Act, she shall be bound to inform the
Magistrate of the grant of such relief."] 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
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 3 of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be
deployed to override 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
be
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
realised. Rights in law can translate to
rights in life, only if there is an equitable
ease in obtaining their realisation."

20. The Maintenance Tribunal, while
deciding any such controversy is under
mandate to pass composite order. In the
case of S. Vanitha (supra) the Apex Court
has elaborated the manner of exercise of
10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1127
power by the Maintenance Tribunal has
been given in para 39, which is quoted
herein below:-

"39. Adverting to the factual
situation at hand, on construing the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23
of the Senior Citizens 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. On the
other hand, the appellant's simple plea is
that the suit premises constitute her
"shared household" within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, 2005. We
have also seen the series of transactions
which took place in respect of the property
: the spouse of the appellant purchased it in
his own name a few months before the
marriage but subsequently sold it, after a
few years, under a registered sale deed at
the same price to his father (the father-inlaw of the appellant), who in turn gifted it
to his spouse i.e. the mother-in-law of the
appellant after divorce proceedings were
instituted by the fourth respondent. Parallel
to this, the appellant had instituted
proceedings of dowry harassment against
her mother-in-law and her estranged
spouse; and her spouse had instituted
divorce proceedings. The appellant had
also filed proceedings for maintenance
against the fourth respondent and the
divorce proceedings are pending. It is
subsequent to these events, that the second
and
third
respondents
instituted
an
application under the Senior Citizens Act,
2007. The fact that specific proceedings
under the PWDV Act, 2005 had not been
instituted when the application under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed, should
not lead to a situation where the
enforcement of an order of eviction
deprives her from pursuing her claim of
entitlement under the law. The inability of a
woman to access judicial remedies may, as
this case exemplifies, be a consequence of
destitution, ignorance or lack of resources.
Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view
that recourse to the summary procedure
contemplated by the Senior Citizens Act,
2007 was not available for the purpose of
facilitating strategies that are designed to
defeat the claim of the appellant in respect
of a shared household. A shared household
would have to be interpreted to include the
residence where the appellant had been
jointly residing with her husband. Merely
because the ownership of the property has
been subsequently transferred to her inlaws (second and third respondents) or that
her estranged spouse (fourth respondent) is
now residing separately, is no ground to
deprive the appellant of the protection that
was envisaged under the PWDV Act,
2005."

21. While exercising powers under
the Act, 2007, it has been noticed that any
order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal
could not obviate the competing remedy
under the Act, 2005 and in an event of
composite
dispute
the
Maintenance
Tribunal would be bound to consider the
rights of daughter-in-law/aggrieved woman
for residence under Section 17 of Act,
2005.

22. The maintenance Tribunal dealing
with the application filed by the Senior
Citizen for maintenance would be within its
competence to consider the rights of the
daughter-in-law under section 17 and 19 of
the act of 2005. Such consideration is
provided for in section 26 of the said act
which is as under: -

"26. Relief in other suits and
legal
proceedings.-(1)
Any
relief
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
available under sections 18, 19,20, 21 and
22 may also be sought in any legal
proceeding, before a civil court, family
court or a criminal court, affecting the
aggrieved person and the respondent
whether such proceeding was initiated
before or after the commencement of this
Act. (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section
(1) may be sought for in addition to and
along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or
legal proceeding before a civil or criminal
court. (3) In case any relief has been
obtained by the aggrieved person in any
proceedings other than a proceeding under
this Act, she shall be bound to inform the
Magistrate of the grant of such relief."

23. This aspect of the matter was duly
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Satish Chandra Ahuja vs Sneha
Ahuja (supra) rendering the opinion in the
following terms: -

"102. After noticing the provision
of Section 26 of the Act, this Court made
the following observations in paras 23 and
24 : (Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi v.
Nanasaheb Gopal Joshi, (2017) 14 SCC
373)

"23. Section 26 of the Act is a
special provision which has been enacted
in the enactment. Although, Chapter IV of
the Act containing Section 12 to Section 29
contains the procedure for obtaining orders
of reliefs by making application before the
Magistrate whereas steps taken by the
Magistrate and different categories of
reliefs could be granted as noted in
Sections 18 to 22 and certain other
provisions. Section 26 provides that any
relief available under Sections 18 to 22
may
also
be
sought
in
any
legal
proceedings, before a civil court, family
court or a criminal court, affecting the
aggrieved person and the respondent.
Section 26 is material for the present case
since the appellant has set up her
counterclaim on the basis of this section
before the Judge, Small Cause Court.
Section 26 is extracted below:

26. Relief in other suits and legal
proceedings.-(1) Any relief available
under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may
also be sought in any legal proceeding,
before a civil court, family court or a
criminal court, affecting the aggrieved
person and the respondent whether such
proceeding was initiated before or after the
commencement of this Act.

(2) Any relief referred to in subsection (1) may be sought for in addition to
and along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or
legal proceeding before a civil or criminal
court.

(3) In case any relief has been
obtained by the aggrieved person in any
proceedings other than a proceeding under
this Act, she shall be bound to inform the
Magistrate of the grant of such relief.'

24. There cannot be any dispute
that proceeding before the Judge, Small
Cause Court is a legal proceeding and the
Judge, Small Cause Court is a civil court.
On the strength of Section 26, any relief
available under Sections 18 to 22 of the
2005 Act, thus, can also be sought by the
aggrieved person."

103. This Court held that Section
26 has to be interpreted in a manner to
effectuate the purpose and object of the
Act. This Court held that the determination
of claim of the aggrieved person was
10 All. Deepali Chopra @ Deepali Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1129
necessary in the suit to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. This Court laid down the
following in paras 40 and 41 of Vaishali
Abhimanyu Joshi case (supra):-

"40. Section 26 of the 2005 Act
has to be interpreted in a manner to
effectuate the very purpose and object of
the Act. Unless the determination of claim
by an aggrieved person seeking any order
as contemplated by the 2005 Act is
expressly barred from consideration by a
civil court, this Court shall be loath to read
in bar in consideration of any such claim in
any legal proceeding before the civil court.
When the proceeding initiated by the
plaintiff in the Judge, Small Cause Court
alleged termination of gratuitous licence of
the appellant and prays for restraining the
appellant from using the suit flat and
permit the plaintiff to enter and use the flat,
the right of residence as claimed by the
appellant is interconnected with such
determination and refusal of consideration
of claim of the appellant as raised in her
counterclaim shall be nothing but denying
consideration of claim as contemplated by
Section 26 of the 2005 Act which shall lead
to multiplicity of proceedings, which
cannot be the object and purpose of the
2005 Act.

41.
We,
thus,
are
of
the
considered opinion that the counterclaim
filed by the appellant before Judge, Small
Cause Court in Civil Suit No. 77 of 2013
was fully entertainable and the courts
below committed error in refusing to
consider such claim."

104. In view of the ratio laid
down by this Court in the above case, the
claim of the defendant that suit property is
shared household and she has right to
reside in the house ought to have been
considered by the trial court and nonconsideration of the claim/defence is
nothing but defeating the right, which is
protected by the 2005 Act."

24. On a fair reading of the judgments
in the case of S. Vanitha (supra) as well as
Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra) it becomes
clear that whenever a composite dispute
arises, meaning thereby where the senior
citizens are seeking remedy of eviction of
daughter-in-law and while on the other
hand daughter-in-law claims herself to be a
victim of domestic violence seeks remedy
of residence under the Act, 2005, the
Maintenance Tribunal while dealing with
the application of senior citizen will have to
consider the rights of daughter-in-law
under Section 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005. It
is when the Maintenance Tribunal duly
considers the rights of the daughter-in-law
under the Act, 2005, the said order can be
called a composite order and as held by the
Apex Court in the case of S. Vineetha
(supra) the said composite order would
have to be placed before a competent Court
dealing with Section 25 of the Act, 2005.
Similar view was echoed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja
v. Sneha Ahuja, (supra), in para 90 the
Court held as under :-

"90.
Before
we
close
our
discussion on Section 2(s), we need to
observe that the right to residence under
Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of
residence in shared household especially
when the daughter-in-law is pitted against
aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The
senior citizens in the evening of their life
are also entitled to live peacefully not
haunted by marital discord between their
son and daughter-in-law. While granting
relief both in application under Section 12
of the 2005 Act or in any civil proceedings,
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court has to balance the rights of both
the parties. The directions issued by the
High Court [Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash
Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886] in
para 56 adequately balance the rights of
both the parties."

25. In the present case respondent no.
6 has approached the Maintenance Tribunal
alleging that in the disputed property being
House No. B/237, Sector B, Mahanagar,
Lucknow is owned by her husband and is
being occupied by respondent no. 7 (son of
respondent no. 6) and petitioner, though
they do not have any vested right in the
said property, there also exists embittered
matrimonial relationship between petitioner
and respondent no. 7. The petitioner has
also started torturing, humiliating and
harassing respondent no. 6 and her husband
and blocking the way and passage to seek
medical treatment and also to go outside
the house. Dispute between them escalated
to such an extent that Police had to
interfere in the matter. Respondent no. 6
has stated in her application that she and
her husband fear for their life and safety
looking to the cruel and abusive behavior of
the petitioner and have accordingly sought her
eviction from the said premises.

26. The petitioner had filed her objections
before the Maintenance Tribunal where she has
stated that respondent no. 7 has filed divorce
petition before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow and that she is living
alongwith her two children on the ground floor
of the disputed property and had categorically
stated that the said application has been filed as
a result of conspiracy between respondent no. 6
and 7 in order to throw the petitioner out of the
disputed property.

27. The petitioner has also moved an
application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
C.B.I., Lucknow stating that her husband i.e.
respondent no. 7 is earning about Rs.6,00,000/-
per month and is also a wealthy person having
number of properties and the applicant on the
other hand is a victim of domestic violence and
has sought maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- per
month and compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
apart from costs. In the said application it is
noticed that she has not sought right of
residence.

28.