CASE NAME : Devba Pauladsing Girase v. Kavita Himmatsing Girase and Others
CASE NUMBER: Writ Petition No. 11433 of 2023
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
DATE: 13 August, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ajit B. Kadethankar
FACTS
The petitioner, a 70-year-old retired man, is the father of respondent no.2 and father-in-law of respondent no.1. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife whose marriage has broken down, giving rise to several rounds of litigation. In one such round, respondent no.1 filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.515 of 2017 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner and other family members. A Magistrate at Shirpur allowed the application on 10 December 2018, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.11,000 to respondent no.1 and her two minor daughters, and directing the family members not to evict them from a house at Plot No.67-B, Bijli Nagar, Shingave, referred to in the judgment as the “Writ House,” except through due process of law. An appeal against this order was partly allowed but the residence protection was confirmed by order dated 21 January 2022, and later challenges before the High Court also failed. The order dated 10 December 2018 therefore remained in force.
After losing these rounds, the petitioner turned to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur, registered as Senior Citizen Case No.6 of 2022, asking that respondent no.1 be directed to vacate the Writ House and hand over possession to him. This application made by him was rejected on 2 December, 2022. His appeal under Section 16 before the Appellate Authority, the District Collector, Dhule, was also dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court through this writ petition.
ISSUES
- Whether a proceeding under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be used to secure eviction of a daughter-in-law from a shared household when her residence there is already protected by an order under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- Whether the petitioner made out a genuine case of need under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007.
- Whether the petition before the authorities and before the High Court was filed with bonafide intent.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 4,5 and 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007- Senior Citizen Right to claim maintenance and Appeal Mechanism.
- Section 12 and 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- S. Vanitha v M. Vannankutty (2021) 15 SCC 730 – Supreme Court Decision on the interplay between the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER: Mr. Amol Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that his client is the sole owner of the Writ House and, given his age, the authorities ought to have allowed the application. He submitted that the petitioner had to move to a rented premises for personal reasons and that this made his claim justified. He further argued that the petitioner had nothing to do with the marital dispute between his son and daughter-in-law and should not be made to bear its consequences. He relied on the beneficial nature of the Act of 2007, framed to secure the life and welfare of senior citizens, and submitted that the petitioner has no source of income and is struggling to pay rent at his present residence.
RESPONDENT NO.1: Ms. S.T. Kazi, appearing for respondent no.1, opposed the petition, submitting that it was filed only to defeat the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. She pointed out that the petitioner’s earlier challenges to that order had already failed, including before the High Court, and that the authorities below were right in rejecting his application. Allowing the writ petition, she argued, would undo the protection already secured by respondent no.1 through a judicial order that had attained finality.
ANALYSIS
The Court noted that the marital dispute between respondent nos.1 and 2 is not in question, and that it has led to several proceedings involving other family members as well. The order dated 10 December 2018 under the Domestic Violence Act was passed after a full hearing and has withstood every challenge raised against it. That order continues to bind the parties.
Turning to the Senior Citizens Act proceedings, the Court found that the question of who owns the Writ House was not the real issue. What mattered was that the petitioner’s own pleadings showed he owns another house, at Plot No.106, Ganesh Colony, Shirpur, which he admitted was self-earned. The Court found his explanation that he vacated the writ house because of threats from respondent no. 1, his separate contention that he vacated another house that he owned for personal reasons and the absence of any record to prove that he was really renting elsewhere, to be a fabrication.
The Court also examined the specific relief sought in the application, namely a direction to respondent no.1 to vacate the Writ House with police assistance. It held that this prayer was really an attempt to get around the residence protection already granted to respondent no.1 and her daughters under the Domestic Violence Act. Relying on S. Vanitha case, the Court reiterated that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be read together, and that the summary procedure under the former cannot be used to defeat a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the latter. On the facts, the Court held that the petition was not filed in good faith, and observed that it appeared to be a proxy petition.
JUDGMENT
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld both the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and the Appellate Authority. Exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed on the petitioner, payable within two months, failing which the amount is to be recovered as land revenue. On deposit, respondent no.1 is entitled to withdraw the full amount for herself and her two minor daughters.
CONCLUSION
This judgment makes clear that the protective machinery of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is meant for the genuine welfare needs of elderly parents and is not a shortcut to override rights already secured under other protective legislation such as the Domestic Violence Act. Courts will look past the form of a petition to its substance, and where a senior citizen’s application is found to be a proxy move on behalf of another family member to defeat a subsisting judicial order, it will be treated as an abuse of process and dealt with by way of costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: HARSHMEET KAUR SUDAN
Read the Judgement Copy here: Devba Pauladsing Girase vs Kavita Himmatsing Girase & others
