Bombay HC protects woman’s right to Juhu matrimonial home

The court observed that the machinery under 2007 Act cannot be used to defeat right to residence in matrimonial home of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005

The Bombay high court on Monday struck down the order of a Maintenance Tribunal, established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, evicting a woman from her in-laws’ residence in Juhu.

On Sept 18, 2023, the Tribunal allowed her plea and ordered eviction of the petitioner woman and husband from the house. (File photo)

The court observed that the machinery under the 2007 Act cannot be used to defeat the right to residence in the matrimonial home of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005.

Justice Sandeep Marne, while striking down the Tribunal order, stated, “No doubt, senior citizens are entitled to reside in their own house with peace and without any disturbance due to marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. But at the same time, the machinery under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to defeat the right of a woman under Section 17 of the DV Act.”

Acting on a complaint filed by the mother-in-law of the woman, the Maintenance Tribunal had, on September 18, 2023, ordered her and her husband to vacate their residence in JVPD Scheme in Juhu.

Married in 1997, the couple has a 26-year-old daughter, settled in the US, and a 21-year-old son, pursuing a management course in the city.

The relations between the couple soured, and in the first week of November 2022, the petitioner woman filed a police complaint against her husband.

The family reacted, and her father-in-law and son lodged a counter-complaint against her. Soon thereafter, the mother-in-law moved the Maintenance Tribunal for Western Suburbs, levelling various allegations against her son and daughter-in-law, and sought their eviction from the Juhu residence.

On September 18, 2023, the Tribunal allowed her plea and ordered the eviction of the petitioner woman and her husband from the house.

The woman then approached the High Court, contending that her estranged husband had misused the Tribunal through his mother-in-law to throw her out of her matrimonial home, even when her plea for protecting her right of residence was pending before a metropolitan magistrate court.

On Monday, the single-judge bench of Justice Marne found substance in the woman’s contentions, although the counsel for the mother-in-law pointed out that the petitioner woman had gone to the extent of levelling allegations of sexual harassment against her father-in-law and that senior citizens cannot be made to live under the threat of being implicated under false accusations.

In this regard, Justice Marne stated that when there is a contest between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and that of a woman under the DV Act, a “balancing act needs to be done, and the rights of senior citizens cannot be decided in isolation.”

The court also noted that although the woman’s husband was directed to vacate the Juhu residence of her in-laws, he continued to reside in the flat. Additionally, the woman was not earning herself and had no other place to call home.

“Therefore, the petitioner cannot be rendered homeless to ensure the peace of mind of the senior citizens,” the court said.