Court emphasizes harmonious construction of Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act, orders Rs. 50,000 exemplary costs on petitioner for abusing process
In a significant judgment delivered on August 13, 2026, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar, dismissed a writ petition filed by senior citizen Devba Pauladsing Girase seeking eviction of his daughter-in-law, Kavita Himmatsing Girase, from a property claimed to be his self-acquired. The Court underscored that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the Senior Citizens Act") cannot be used as a tool to circumvent judicial protections granted under other laws, particularly the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the Domestic Violence Act").
The petition arose from a long-standing matrimonial discord between the petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law, which had already been the subject of multiple civil and criminal proceedings. The daughter-in-law had obtained a protection order under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act directing that she and her two minor daughters be allowed to reside in the disputed property. This order had been upheld by the Magistrate, the Additional Sessions Judge, and this High Court in earlier proceedings.
Frustrated with the failure of his appeals, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking to evict the daughter-in-law from the property. The authorities under the Act rejected his application, a decision that was also upheld on appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court through the present writ petition.
Rejecting the petitioner’s claims, Justice Kadethankar observed that the Senior Citizens Act is a benevolent legislation intended to ensure maintenance and welfare of senior citizens who are unable to maintain themselves. However, its provisions must be exercised bona fide and cannot be invoked to frustrate the lawful rights of others, particularly when those rights are protected by judicial orders under other statutes. The Court pointed out that the petitioner himself owned multiple properties and was residing in a rented house, thus negating his contention of destitution or inability to maintain himself.
The Court referred to the authoritative Supreme Court decision in S. Vanitha v. M. Vannankutty (2021) 15 SCC 730, which held that the rights of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be defeated by eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act. The Court emphasized that these legislations must be harmoniously construed to avoid defeating the purpose of either.
Strongly censuring the petitioner for abusing the process of law and using the Senior Citizens Act as a proxy to harass the daughter-in-law and her minor children, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000. These costs are to be paid to the respondent for herself and her daughters, and failure to pay will result in recovery as land revenue. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that protective laws must not be manipulated and that judicial orders under different laws stand on equal footing and must be respected.
This ruling clarifies the limits of protections offered to senior citizens under the 2007 Act and reinforces the supremacy of protection orders granted under the Domestic Violence Act in matrimonial disputes involving residence rights.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Proceedings under the Act cannot be used to frustrate judicial orders passed under other legislations - Rights under the Act are not unfettered and must be exercised bonafidely.
Statutory provision(s):
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Sections 4, 5, 16; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12
