13 Aug 2121

The right of the women to secure residence order in respect of shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by exercise of the summary powers under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Bombay High Court

Case : Ritika Prashant Jasani v. Anjana Niranjan Jasani and others Writ Petition No. 2631 of 2021

Court : Bombay High Court

Bench : Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

Decided on : 13 Aug 2121

Relevant Statutes

Section 4 and 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Section 2 (s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 

Brief Facts and Procedural History

1. Respondent No.1 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and Petitioner with her husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani and minor daughter (Samaira) residing in the flat with respondent No.1. This flat o belonged to Mr. Anandlal Jasani, who during his lifetime nominated that a twenty per cent share of the flat will be granted in favour of the petitioner’s husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani. After some time, Mr. Anandlal Jasani died in 2007 and with this, his son Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani, Mrs. Anjana Niranjan Jasani and Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani along with other legal heirs were entitled to equal rights and shares in the flat.

2. The Petitioner has been residing with Mr. Prashant Jasani, with respondent No.1. Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani died intestate at Mumbai on 11.04.2016 then the petitioner claims the said flat to be her matrimonial home as well as her shared household. It was also stated that the petitioner and respondent No.1 was also earning income. The Petitioner’s husband Prashant Niranjan Jasani was suffering from mental illness and depression because of which he requires regular treatment and counselling as He is not in a position to contribute to the family. 

3. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 wants to sell the said flat and also to retain the sale consideration to herself to enable her to lead an affluent lifestyle which the Petitioner and her husband opposed. Petitioner states that the said flat is not the self-acquired property of respondent No.1 as it is an ancestral property of the family. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint dated 26.04.2019 before the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens for eviction of the petitioner and her husband Prashant Jasani from the flat. 

4. Afterwards, The Petitioner filed her objection dated 08.12.2020 and denied all the allegations levelled against her and her husband and stated that After the death of her father-in-law respondent No.1 wanted to sell the flat to sustain her luxurious lifestyle to which petitioner and her husband did not agree and the Respondent No.1 never offered any help to the petitioner in raising her daughter despite her son’s (petitioner’s husband’s) ill-health. 

5. The Petitioner has asserted that her husband’s grandfather Anandlal Jasani had nominated twenty per cent share of the flat to her husband and denied execution of any will by her father-in-law in favour of respondent No.1 as the daughter-in-law she has all the right to live with dignity in her shared household. The Tribunal by order dated 15.12.2020 allowed the complaint of respondent No.1 and ordered petitioner and her husband to vacate and to hand over possession of the said flat to respondent No.1 and case they fail to comply with then they would be evicted from the flat by use of force but this order said order is not allowing respondent No.1 to sell or transfer the same. The present writ petition has been filed against this order. 

The Issues of the Case

Whether the flat is an ancestral property or exclusively owned by respondent No.1. Or the Tribunal under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007  Act can order the eviction of a person from a tenement in which he has ownership right to the extent of twenty per cent? 

Whether a  Tribunal can direct or order the eviction of children or relatives at the first instance or at a later stage to enforce an order of maintenance passed at the first instance or the petitioner has a right to reside in her shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Act?

The Observations of the Court

1. The Honourable Bombay High Court referred Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and referred one judgment i.e. Satish Chandra Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, 2021 (1) SCC 414 and it was held shared household does not necessary means it shall belong to the husband as it also includes the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the women has lived.  

2. The Honourable Bombay High Court referred to another judgment Smt. S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, AIR 2021 SC 177, The Court referred Both the legislation i.e. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and observed that The right of the women to secure residence order in respect of shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by the exercise of summary powers under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 the overriding effect for remedies which is sought by the applicants under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies which are sought to be conferred under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. 

3. The Honourable Bombay High Court referred another judgement i.e. Dattatrey Shivaji Mane, Writ Petition no. 10611 of 2018,  It was held that the Tribunal Can order the eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 if the tenement is the exclusive property of the parent or senior citizen ad which was not in this case. The Honourable High Court also held that protection and maintenance of both parents and daughter in law are necessary and it was also observed that as there is no finding by the Tribunal that the Petitioner and her husband did not maintain respondent no 1. 

The Decision Held by the Court

The Writ Petition is allowed and sets aside the order dated 15.12.2020 which was passed by the Tribunal.

Click here to view/download the judgement >