Summary of this article
• Kerala High Court expands 'children' definition to include daughter-in-law, allowing mother-in-law to live in shared house
• It references prior judgements on property rights of senior citizens and rejected daughter-in-law's writ petition
The Kerala High Court allowed the mother-in-law to reside in the shared house with her daughter-in-law. The single judge bench of Viju Abraham, J., rejected the writ petition filed by the daughter-in-law, who challenged the Maintenance Tribunal's order in this regard. The Tribunal passed the order allowing the mother-in-law to live on the first floor of the shared house's building. Notably, the judge, while giving the judgment, expanded the definition of 'children' under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and included daughter-in-law in the definition and rejected her petition against the Tribunal's order allowing mother-in-law to live in the same house.
Case Brief
The daughter-in-law filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to the Judicial Magistrate First-Class (JFMC). The Magistrate passed an order in 2021, restraining the mother-in-law and others from causing disturbances to the peaceful living of the daughter-in-law and her children, who reside in the shared house. The property in question originally belonged to the mother-in-law, who transferred it to her son. Her (daughter-in-law) complaint was that her husband did not treat her and her minor children well, and she (daughter-in-law) was living on the ground floor of the shared house with her parents and relatives.
In response to it, the mother-in-law approached the Tribunal, under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, granted the right to live on the first floor in the same property. At the same time, it directed the daughter-in-law to cause issues, including physical or mental torture to the mother-in-law.
Then, the petitioner (daughter-in-law) filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.
Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the right of the petitioner "to secure a residence or in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007." The counsel argued that there is a chance of threats and harassment, and thus, the writ petition should be allowed.
The respondent's argument was that they don't have any other property to live in, and the property originally belonged to them.
Court Observation
The court referred to judgements of the previous cases of the same nature. It also observed that the property in this case originally belonged to the mother-in-law, who transferred it to her son through a gift deed, and later cancelled the gift deed.
The court, referring to the previous judgements, clarified that "by any order passed under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, any benefit obtained by an applicant as per the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be precluded."
For the other argument of the petitioner that the maintenance application can be filed only against the children, and the daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of 'children' under the Senior Citizens Act, the court referred to the earlier judgments.
It is explained as "if there is a doubt as to whether a person is included in the definition of "children" or "relative" in the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court has to take the aid of tools like purposive interpretation and casus omissus to achieve the intended purpose of the enactment."
Who are defined as children and relatives under the Senior Citizen Act?
Sections 2(a) and 2(g) define the words 'children' and 'relative' as:
• 2(a) "children" includes son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter, but does not include a minor”
• 2(g) "relative" means any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death”
Court Judgement
The court held that the mother-in-law cannot be prevented from staying in the property because of the doubts of causing harassment to the daughter-in-law. However, the court said that if the daughter-in-law finds it difficult to live in the same place in any specific case, she can approach the Court and seek a remedy under Section 19(f) of the DV Act.
The court dismissed the petition and held the Tribunal's order intact.
