This mother-in-law got an eviction order. The Bombay HC said no.

When a Mother-in-Law’s Eviction Order Met a Daughter-in-Law’s Right to Shelter

Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani moved into her mother-in-law’s flat in 1997, the year she got married. Twenty-seven years later, she was staring at an eviction order. The Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 had directed her to vacate the very home she had lived in for nearly three decades. Her husband, who was also ordered to leave, did not challenge the order. Sanjivani did. And the Bombay High Court had to decide: could a summary eviction under the Senior Citizens Act override a woman’s statutory right to live in her matrimonial home under the Domestic Violence Act?

The stakes were personal and legal. For Sanjivani, it meant losing her home. For the law, it meant resolving a clash between two statutes—one protecting senior citizens from neglect, the other protecting women from domestic violence. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, sitting singly, delivered the answer on March 18, 2024.

The Flat, the Complaints, and the Collusion

The property in question was a flat owned by Kavita Shyam Seernani, Sanjivani’s mother-in-law. Sanjivani and her husband Jayesh lived there with their son. By November 2022, marital discord had erupted. Sanjivani filed a police complaint against her husband and in-laws. Within days, her father-in-law and son filed counter-complaints. Then, in what the High Court later described as a suspiciously timed move, the in-laws approached the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking eviction of both their son and daughter-in-law.

The Tribunal, presided over by the Special Judge & Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, passed an order on September 18, 2023. It directed Sanjivani and her husband to vacate the flat, ordered them to pay maintenance to the senior citizens, and injuncted them from causing physical or mental torture. Sanjivani, who had simultaneously filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, saw her right to reside in the shared household being dismantled by a parallel proceeding.

The husband did not challenge the eviction order. That silence, the Court noted, suggested collusion. “The timing of the complaints and the husband’s failure to challenge the eviction order indicate a possible collusive arrangement,” Justice Marne observed.

What Each Side Argued

Sanjivani’s counsel argued that the Senior Citizens Act proceedings were a misuse of process. The in-laws, she contended, had filed the eviction petition not because they were neglected or destitute, but to defeat her right to the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act. The family was affluent—multiple properties, club memberships, expensive cars—and the senior citizens had alternative accommodations. The eviction order, she submitted, was a weapon to throw her out of her matrimonial home while the DV Act proceedings were still pending.

The senior citizens, represented by their counsel, relied on a string of Bombay High Court decisions: Ashish Vinod Dalal v. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal (Writ Petition No.2400 of 2021), Shefali Sanjiv Patil & Anr. v. Jyotiben Manubhai Patel & Anr. (Writ Petition No.2441 of 2021), and Sheetal Devang Shah v. Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1068). These cases, they argued, supported the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to order eviction. The husband, Respondent No.3, cited Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane (2018 (6) Mh.L.J. 681) and Ashwini Bharat Khater & Anr. v. Urvashi Bharat Khater & Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1921) to bolster the Senior Citizens Act proceedings.

The Court was not impressed. It distinguished each of these precedents, noting that none of them involved a competing claim under the DV Act by a daughter-in-law who had lived in the property for decades.

The Supreme Court Precedent That Changed Everything

The key authority was S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban Districts & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that a woman’s right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act cannot be defeated by a summary eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act. Both enactments, the Supreme Court said, must be harmoniously construed. Where competing claims exist, the Tribunal must mould the relief to ensure that the woman’s DV Act rights are not rendered illusory.

Justice Marne applied S. Vanitha squarely. He held that the Maintenance Tribunal, when faced with a claim for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act and a simultaneous claim for protection of the shared household under the DV Act, cannot simply order eviction without considering the competing claims. The Tribunal must examine whether the eviction would defeat the daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the shared household—a right that the DV Act expressly protects.

THE PLAY: When a daughter-in-law claims right to shared household under Section 17 DV Act and senior citizens seek eviction under Senior Citizens Act, the Tribunal must mould the relief to ensure the woman’s DV Act rights are not defeated by summary eviction proceedings. Do not let a collusive Senior Citizens Act petition bypass the DV Act’s protections.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Harmonious Construction

The Court interpreted Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, which gives it overriding effect, alongside Section 17 and Section 2(s) of the DV Act. It held that the overriding effect of the Senior Citizens Act does not automatically extinguish a woman’s right to the shared household. Both statutes operate in different spheres—the Senior Citizens Act protects parents from neglect; the DV Act protects women from domestic violence. Where they intersect, the Tribunal must balance the competing rights.

The Court also invoked Section 26 of the DV Act, which allows a woman to seek relief in other legal proceedings. This meant that the senior citizens were not without a remedy: they could seek eviction before the Metropolitan Magistrate who was already adjudicating the DV Act proceedings. That forum, the Court noted, was better equipped to weigh the evidence and determine whether the eviction was justified.

Why the Tribunal Got It Wrong

The Tribunal’s error was twofold. First, it passed the eviction order without considering the pending DV Act proceedings. Second, it failed to examine whether the senior citizens had alternative accommodations or whether the eviction was sought collusively. The Court noted that the family’s affluent status—multiple properties, club memberships, expensive cars—suggested that alternatives existed for resolving the living arrangement. The senior citizens were not destitute; they were using the Senior Citizens Act as a tactical weapon.

The Court also observed that the husband’s failure to challenge the eviction order was telling. If the eviction was genuinely needed to protect the senior citizens, why would the son—who was equally liable to be evicted—not contest it? The inference of collusion was strong.

What the Court Ordered

Justice Marne set aside the eviction direction in the Tribunal’s order dated September 18, 2023. However, he upheld the maintenance and the injunction against physical or mental torture. The senior citizens were given liberty to seek eviction before the Metropolitan Magistrate who was adjudicating the DV Act proceedings. This way, the Court protected both sets of rights: the senior citizens could still pursue eviction, but only through a forum that could properly consider Sanjivani’s claim to the shared household.

The order was a classic example of judicial balancing. It did not throw out the Senior Citizens Act claim entirely; it redirected it to the appropriate forum. And it ensured that Sanjivani’s right to shelter was not extinguished by a summary proceeding that ignored her competing rights.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a critical tool in defending daughters-in-law against eviction petitions filed by in-laws under the Senior Citizens Act. The key takeaway: whenever a Senior Citizens Act eviction petition is filed against a woman who has a pending DV Act complaint, the Tribunal must stay its hands or mould the relief. The woman’s right to the shared household under Section 17 DV Act is not a paper right—it is a substantive protection that cannot be bypassed by a collusive or summary proceeding.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is about the importance of forum. When family disputes escalate, the choice of forum can determine the outcome. A senior citizens tribunal may be quick to order eviction, but it is not equipped to handle the nuanced claims under the DV Act. The right forum—the Magistrate under the DV Act—can consider all competing claims and pass a balanced order.

The judgment also serves as a warning against collusive litigation. If a husband does not challenge an eviction order that also applies to him, the court will draw an adverse inference. The timing of complaints, the failure to contest, and the availability of alternative accommodations are all factors that can expose a collusive scheme.

The Bottom Line

When a daughter-in-law claims right to shared household under Section 17 DV Act, a Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act cannot order her eviction without considering those competing claims—and if the Tribunal does, the High Court will set it aside.