Read Time: 09 minutes

Calling the matter 'an unfortunate litigation', the Allahabad High Court last week came to aid of a widow by setting aside an eviction order against her and her son from her in-laws' house. 

Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Other (2020), the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary held,

" It stands settled that both the Acts i.e. Senior Citizens, Act, 2007 and PWDV Act, 2005 (the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) are to be read simultaneously and a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home on the basis of the summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007."

Therefore, observing that it did not find any circumstance under which it could be stated that the petitioner widow and her son were causing any damage or interfering in any manner with the lives of the in-laws, court set aside the eviction order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow.

Court said, "On the contrary, by their ousting, they have been left roofless and to put great inconvenience."

Court also directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the ground floor of the concerned House to the petitioner woman and her son and also asked the in-laws to not disturb or interfere in any manner with the living of the woman and her son in the said property.

Matter in Brief

The petitioner woman got married in February, 2013 to her husband. Initially, she and her husband used to live with her husband's parents in their house at Udaiganj, Lucknow. However, soon thereafter the petitioner and her husband started living separately on the ground floor of the other house of the husband's parents at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

On July 21, 2015, a son was born to the couple. However, on July 15, 2019, the petitioner's husband expired. 

In her plea before the high court, the petitioner woman had alleged that after the death of her husband, her in-laws started harassing her, including for dowry for which she had filed several F.I.Rs.

She had averred that she had also filed a Complaint Case in November 2019 against them under Section 12 and 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act, 2005) in which she had also sought maintenance for herself and her son.

She had further submitted that meanwhile, the proceedings under the abovesaid cases were going on, her in-laws also filed a case in October 2019 under Rule 21 and 22 of the Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 asking for possession of the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in which the impugned eviction order was passed. 

Her counsel had apprised the court that though initially she was granted an interim protection by the High Court but the same could not be extended and her belongings were thrown on the road and she was forcefully evicted from the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on September 8, 2021. 

Court's observations

Discussing the provisions of The Senior Citizens Act, 2007(the Act) court rejected private respondent's (in-laws') contention that the appeal against the impugned order would lie before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Act.

Court noted, "The power of eviction is exercised under Rule 21 which is framed for giving effect to powers under Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which falls under Chapter-V of the Act. There is no provision of appeal against any of these orders either under Chapter-V of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 or under the Senior Citizens Rules, 2014."

Thereafter, coming to the merits of the case, the court said that the instant eviction order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow ignoring the law settled by the apex Court in case of S. Vanitha (above mentioned).

Accordingly, rejecting the argument of in-laws' counsel that the eviction order was passed for the protection of life and property of senior citizens, the court held that there was no finding that the petitioner has caused any damage to the property in any manner whatsoever and therefore, in absence of any such finding, the impugned order could not have been passed.

With these observations, the court allowed the petition and set aside the eviction order. 

Case Title: Smt. Khushboo Shukla v. District Magistrate, Lucknow & Ors