Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007:
2(b) and 3 – Petition under the Act – By respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking eviction of their daughter-in-law (appellant) from their house – Plea of appellant that she had been living in the house as her matrimonial residence and that her husband (respondent No. 4) had deserted her and their daughter – The authorities concerned directed the appellant to vacate the house – Writ Petition – Single Judge of High Court held that the appellant had no cause of action against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they owned the house and that her right to claim shelter lied only against her husband – Division Bench of High Court affirmed the judgment of Single Judge – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The premises in question constitute a ‘shared household’ within meaning of s. 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Object of 2005 Act is to recognize right of woman to reside in a shared household – Both pieces of legislation are intended to deal with salutary aspects of public welfare and interest – Both the Acts are special Acts – Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed – The right of a woman to secure a residence order for a shared household under the 2005 Act cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction under the 2007 Act. The over-riding effect for the remedies sought under 2007 Act cannot preclude all other competing remedies under 2005 Act – It would be appropriate for a Tribunal u/s. 2007 Act to grant such remedies of maintenance as envisaged u/s 2(b) of 2007 Act that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other statutes – The Tribunal under 2007 Act should appropriately mould reliefs after noticing competing claims of the parties claiming under 2005 and 2007 Acts – The aggrieved woman after obtaining a relief for shared household from the Tribunal constituted under 2007 Act, is duty bound to inform the Magistrate under 2005 Act as per s.26(3) of 2005 Act – This course of action would ensure speedy relief to both the groups – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ss. 2(s), 17, 26(3) and 36.
Interpretation of statutes:
Two special Acts – Prevailing effect – Held: Where both the Acts contain non-obstante clauses, later Act will prevail – However, in the event of conflict between the Special Acts the dominant purpose of both the statutes have to be analysed to ascertain which one would prevail over the other – The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise.
Definition clause – Interpretation of – Held: Where the definition of an expression adopts ‘means and includes’ stipulation, it is intended to be exhaustive.
Words and Phrases:
‘Shared household’ – Meaning of, in the context of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On construing the provisions of sub-Section (2) of section 23 of the Senior Citizen 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. 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, in turn, executed a gift deed in favor 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 on-going matrimonial dispute which has taken place. [Paras 17 and 23][1087-C-D; 1077-E-H; 1078-A]
2.1 The appellant has submitted that the premises constitute a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The definition of the expression “shared household” in Section 2(s) uses the familiar legislative formula of a “means and includes” definition. Where the definition of an expression in an enactment adopts a ‘means and includes’ stipulation, it is intended to be exhaustive. The ‘means’ part of the definition indicates what would normally fall within the ambit of the expression, while the ‘includes’ element gives it an extended meaning. Together they indicate that the legislature has provided for an exhaustive enumeration of what falls within the ambit of the definition. The use of the expression ‘means’ is intended to make it exhaustive. On the other hand, the use of the expression ‘includes’ is intended to make it more extensive. The legislature by using an expression ‘includes’ evinces, notwithstanding the meaning of the phrase, an intention: “to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute”. “Includes” is utilized so as to comprehend: “not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include”. [Para 18][1078-C; 1079-B-C; D-F]
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G P Singh, Lexis Nexis, 14th Ed. Page 197-199 – referred to.
2.2 However, when a statutory definition incorporates the ‘means and includes’ approach, the intent is to make the definition exhaustive. The definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act 2005 is exhaustive. The definition of the expression ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act of 2005 is in two parts: in the means part of the definition the expression ‘shared household’ means (i) A household where the person aggrieved lives in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent or; (ii) At any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent. This is followed by an inclusive element, so as to cover such a household (i) whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or (ii) owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title or equity. This has also been given an inclusive or extended meaning, which extends to a household which may belong to the joint family of which a respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person have any right, title or interest in the shared household. The last part of the inclusive definition is intended to extend the meaning of a shared household to a situation where the household in fact belongs to a joint family, of which the respondent is a member. The legislature has made it clear that though neither the respondent, nor the aggrieved person in such case may have a right, title or interest in the shared household it would irrespective fall within the ambit of the definition. [Paras 18 and 19][1080-B-C, E-H; 1081-A-B] Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020, decided on 15 October 2020 – relied on.
3.1 Section 36 of the PWDV Act 2005 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This is intended to ensure that the remedies provided under the enactment are in addition to other remedies and do not displace them. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 is undoubtedly a later Act and Section 3 thereof stipulates that its provisions will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment. However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household, as under the PWDV Act 2005. [Para 20][1082G-H; 1083-A-C]
3.2 Principles of statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two special acts containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall typically prevail. In the present case, the Senior Citizen’s Act 2007 contains a non obstante clause. However, in the event of a conflict between special Acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise. In the present case, Section 36 of the PWDV Act 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non-obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that operates in a separate field. [Para 20][1083-C-D; 1084-B-C] Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 71 : [2001] 1 SCR 932; Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh (2008) 8 SCC 148 : [2008] 9 SCR 346; Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416 : [2019] 10 SCR
381 – relied on.
3.3 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 Statements of Objects and Reasons indicates that while Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 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”. [Para 21][1084-C-E]
3.4 The object of the legislation of PWDV Act, 2005 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. [Para 21][1085-B-C]
3.5 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 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. [Para 21][1085-G-H; 1086-A-B]
3.6 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. [Para 22][1086-B-D]
3.7 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. [Para 22][1086-E]
3.8 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 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 realized. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realization. [Para 22][1086-E-F; 1087-A-C]
3.9 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, recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizen 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 in-laws (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. [Para 23][1087-G-H; 1088-A-C]
3.10 Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV 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 powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum. [Para 24][1088-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.