Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2322 (BOM)

Anjana Niranjan Jasani v. Ritika Prashant Jasani

2022-10-20

S.M.MODAK, S.V.GANGAPURWALA

body2022
JUDGMENT S.M.MODAK,J. - Issue involved in this Petition is whether right to live peaceful life by a Senior citizen (Mother-in-law) recognized under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 is to be given priority over the right of daughter-in-law over shared household recognized under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to be given predominance ? Further issue involved before us is "while balancing rights of two competing claims in a proceedings contemplating summary inquiry, to what extent claims of title as to flat in question can be considered"? 2. There is one flat situated at Malbar Hill Mumbai. The Petitioner-Mother-in-law claims exclusive ownership on the basis of probate of will executed by her husband Niranjan Jasani. Whereas Respondent No. 1-Daughter-in-law claims right of residence being matrimonial home/shared household and respondent no.2 son claims nominee on the basis of 20% share as per the nomination by her deceased Anandlal. 3. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The Petitioner-Anjana is the mother of Respondent No.2-Prashant. Whereas Respondent No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner and the wife of Respondent No. 2 all were residing together in the said flat. 4. Further undisputed fact is that the flat in question was owned by one Anandlal Jasani. He is the father of Niranjan. The family tree is described as follows : 5. The death of Anandlal on 8/5/2007 and Niranjan on 11/4/2016 are undisputed. The dispute pertains to the ownership of said flat in question. According to the petitioner Anandlal during his life time transferred or gifted the flat in favour of his son-Niranjan. Accordingly, the flat was transferred in the name of Niranjan by the Society (paragraph 16 of the Petition). Said Niranjan has executed a will on 15/3/2015 and bequeathed the flat in question to the Petitioner. Her further case is that she has obtained probate from this Court on 30/6/2017 and her son Prashant has given no objection for issuance of probate in her favour. 6. Whereas the Respondents contend that Anandlal (grandfather of Prashant) during his life time has nominated three persons and their share in respect of the flat is follows : (A) Niranjan (his son) - 60% (B) Anjana-Petitioner - 20% (C) Respondent-Prashant - 20% 7. 6. Whereas the Respondents contend that Anandlal (grandfather of Prashant) during his life time has nominated three persons and their share in respect of the flat is follows : (A) Niranjan (his son) - 60% (B) Anjana-Petitioner - 20% (C) Respondent-Prashant - 20% 7. The Respondents contend that as per the said nomination the flat was transferred in the name of three nominees in the record of the society and they relied upon an entry dtd. 24/2/2008 (paragraph No. 'n' of the affidavit in reply page 447/8). 8. The contention of the Respondent is that the Petitioner has not produced any title documents as to how the flat is transferred in name of Niranjan from the name of his fatherAnandlal. If such document is not produced by the Petitioner, it mean to say that the Respondents wants to contend that in absence of any transfer document in between Anandlal and Niranjan, the nomination done by Anandlal prevails and as such Prashant also gets 20% right as per that nomination. Whereas the petitioner contends that after grant of probate, the name of Respondent No.2 was deleted from the record of the society and the contention is the Respondents have not challenged this modification (paragraph 18 of the Petition). Now in the record of the society it stands only in the name of Petitioner. 9. There was dispute between petitioner on one hand and respondents on other other hand. Even on some occasions, the petitioner was required to leave the flat and Was required to stay with her daughter. Accordingly the petitioner was required to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (here in after will be referred to as the Act of 2007) before the Maintenance Tribunal/Deputy Collector. The Tribunal instead of passing an eviction order as per the order dtd. 8/12/2021 directed both the parties to live peacefully in the flat in question. The petitioner carried this order before the Appellate Tribunal. However there also the petitioner could not obtain an eviction order and that is how present petition is filed thereby challenging the order dtd. 25/3/2022. Earlier round of Appeals 10. Earlier to present writ petition, in first round of litigation Mother-in-law was successful in getting an eviction order dtd. 15/12/2020 from the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by Deputy Collector Mumbai City. 25/3/2022. Earlier round of Appeals 10. Earlier to present writ petition, in first round of litigation Mother-in-law was successful in getting an eviction order dtd. 15/12/2020 from the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by Deputy Collector Mumbai City. However this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No. 2631/2021 filed only by daughter-in-law Ritika was pleased to set aside the Order of eviction and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and more specifically for the reasons stated in para no. 22 of the order dtd. 15/07/2021. The observations are as follows :- "Question for consideration is whether the Tribunal under the 2007 Act can order eviction of a person from a tenement in which he has ownership right to the extent of twenty percent? This is in addition to the question which arises as to whether having regard to the mandate of sec. 4 of the 2007 Act read with other provisions of the said 2007 Act. Tribunal can direct or order eviction of children or relative at the first instance itself or at a later stage to enforce an order of maintenance passed at the first instance? Further, the question of petitioner's right to reside in her shared household under the 2005 Act may also require consideration by the Tribunal." 11. However at this time (after remand) the daughter-in-lawRitika (present Respondent No. 1) and her husband-Prashant (present Respondent No. 2) were successful in convincing the Tribunal that they too have got right of residence in the flat alongwith the Mother-in-law Anjana (present Petitioner). The Tribunal gave various directions on 08/12/2021. In nutshell they are as follows: (a) Petitioner and Respondents to reside in separate rooms but in the same flat, (b) Respondents not to indulge into any such act which will trouble the Petitioner. (c) Respondents to furnish undertaking of good behaviour within one month. (d) Respondent No. 2-Prashant not to indulge into habit of drinking alcohol and to take treatment from Psychiatrist. (e) Respondent No. 2-Prashant to become financial self sufficient. 12. There were certain monetary directions. They were as follows:- 13. There are also certain directions about resolving the disputes. They are as follows:- (i) Not to create disputes and not to make allegation against each other. (ii) Try to resolve the disputes amicably. (iii) To seek consultation and advice from Manashakti Kendra, Lonavala. Appellate Tribunal 14. The Tribunal gave such comprehensive directions as referred above. They were as follows:- 13. There are also certain directions about resolving the disputes. They are as follows:- (i) Not to create disputes and not to make allegation against each other. (ii) Try to resolve the disputes amicably. (iii) To seek consultation and advice from Manashakti Kendra, Lonavala. Appellate Tribunal 14. The Tribunal gave such comprehensive directions as referred above. However the Petitioner-Mother/Mother-in-law was not satisfied. Hence she approached the Appellate Tribunal chaired by Collector Mumbai by way of an appeal. There also the Petitioner could not get Orders as she desires. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal as per the Order dtd. 25/03/2022 (page 37). In fact the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the Appeal in following manner:- (a) The order dtd. 08/12/2021 of the Tribunal was confirmed. (b) The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was directed to call periodical report after three months from Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai City regarding compliance of the Order dtd. 08/12/2021. 15. Thus there is challenge to the Order dtd. 25/03/2022. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Mayur Khandeparkar for the Petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Kishor Mulji Laxmi Maru for Respondents. Both of them apprised us about the provisions of 2007 Act as well as the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005. Both of them have also relied upon various judgments. Relevant provisions of the 2007 Act 16. The relevant provisions as to entitlement of reliefs under 2007 Act finds place in Sec. 4. It talks about "Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens". We may find following requirement:- a) senior Citizen is unable to maintain himself, b) from his own earning or out of property owned by him, c) children/relative has to take care of the needs of senior citizen so that he may lead a normal life, d) such relative must possess sufficient means and he is in possession of property of senior citizen or would inherit the property of senior citizen. 17. Sec. 2(b) of 2007 Act gives inclusive meaning of the word 'Maintenance". It includes :- Provision for - Food, Clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. 18. Sec. 2(f) lays down meaning of the word 'property' as follows:- a) of any kind, b) whether movable/immovable, c) ancestral/self acquired, d) tangible/intangible and includes rights/interest in such property. 19. Ss. 17. Sec. 2(b) of 2007 Act gives inclusive meaning of the word 'Maintenance". It includes :- Provision for - Food, Clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. 18. Sec. 2(f) lays down meaning of the word 'property' as follows:- a) of any kind, b) whether movable/immovable, c) ancestral/self acquired, d) tangible/intangible and includes rights/interest in such property. 19. Ss. 5 and 6 lays down the procedural aspects about filing of an application for maintenance and jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal and procedure to be followed. Whereas Sec. 8 contemplates following summary procedure while conducting an inquiry under Sec. 5. The tribunal has to pass an order to pay monthly allowance. The outer pecuniary limit fixed is Rs.10,000.00 p.m. Such Order can be passed when :- a) There is neglect/refusal to maintain a senior citizen and b) Such senior citizen is unable to maintain himself. c) When the Tribunal is satisfied of such neglect/refusal. 20. Sec. 16 gives right to Senior citizen/parent to prefer an appeal if he is aggrieved. So when 2007 Act was drafted, there was no express provision for passing an eviction order. There are judgments relied upon by the Petitioner wherein the eviction order was sustained. We will deal with them in later of this order. 21. It is true that 2007 Act does not provide for passing for an order of eviction. Both the sides relied upon different sets of judgments. There were orders of eviction passed in some of them and they were confirmed by Courts whereas in other judgments Courts have refused to sustain the order of eviction passed by the maintenance / Appellate Tribunal. In all these judgments, Courts have upheld / set aside the eviction orders on facts as well as on the basis of interpretation of the provisions of 2007 Act. 22. In this writ petition, we are not going into the issue as to whether an eviction order can legally be passed by the maintenance Tribunal under 2007 Act. So, we are restricting ourselves to the issue as to whether on facts an eviction order can be passed by the Tribunal or not. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this writ petition needs to be decided on following issues :- ISSUES a) Whether an eviction order can be passed in favour of mother-in-law / mother against the daughter-in-law and the son? After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this writ petition needs to be decided on following issues :- ISSUES a) Whether an eviction order can be passed in favour of mother-in-law / mother against the daughter-in-law and the son? b) Whether it can be passed in favour of mother-in-law / mother on the basis of probate of a will against son who is a nominee and against daughter-in-law? Judgments relied upon by the Petitioners (i) Shefali Sanjiv Patel and Anr. Vs. Jyotiben Manubhai Patel and Anr. [Writ Petition No. 2441 of 2021 decided on 14/10/2021]. (ii) Niraj Maholay and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2018 decided on 11/3/2020]. (iii) Shri Santosh Surendra Patil Vs. Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil and Ors. [(2017) 2 AIR BOM R (Cri) 869]. (iv) Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs. Lilabai Shivaji Mane and Ors. [2018 (6) Mh. L.J. 681]. (v) Shweta Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2022) 1 Mah LJ 279]. (vi) Namdeo and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2035 of 2020 decided on 4/4/2022]. (vii) Sunny Paul Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [2018 SCC Online Del 11640]. 23. We have gone through these judgments. We are not dealing with them separately. It is true that the relationship between the parties in those judgments is different right from parents vis vis the son, parents vis -vis the daughter. Even nature of ownership of properties involved in them are different right from self acquired to joint family property. Amongst those judgments, the judgment by the Delhi High Court in case of Sunny Paul was earlier in point of time. In that case proceeding was initiated by the parents under 2007 Act against the sons. The eviction order was upheld. Delhi High Court has taken a note of the fact that "there is no express provision in 2007 Act for passing an eviction order." However, the provisions of Sec. 23 of 2007 Act were considered. It was held that "act of allowing stay in the property by senior citizen to children" amounts to transfer within the meaning of Sec. 23 of the said Act". While doing so the observations by Gujarat High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same lines were considered (para 21 and 22). It was held that "act of allowing stay in the property by senior citizen to children" amounts to transfer within the meaning of Sec. 23 of the said Act". While doing so the observations by Gujarat High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same lines were considered (para 21 and 22). "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed an opinion how a particular statute has to be interpreted" is also referred in para no.19. These observations were followed in above referred judgments relied upon by the Petitioners which were delivered later in time. 24. Amongst those judgments we came across a judgment by Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Niraj Shivkumar as referred above in which there is a reference of filing of the proceedings under 2005 Domestic Violence Act by daughter-in-law against in laws (para 3). The proceedings under 2007 Act were initiated by the parents against the son and daughter-in-law. There were also cases initiated by the son against the parents. The son challenged the eviction order on one of the ground that the property was ancestral property and he cannot be evicted (para 9 and 10). However, it was rejected. On reading that judgment we do not find anywhere any issue was raised about balancing the rights of motherin-law under 2007 Act on one hand and the rights of daughter-inlaw under 2005 Act on the other hand. Judgments relied upon by Respondents 25. Learned Advocate for Respondents relied upon the following judgments :- (i) Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 dtd. 15/12/2020 by Supreme Court. (ii) Smt. Ranjana Makaharia Vs. Mayadevi Makharia in WP No. (L) No. 3509 of 2019 dtd. 24/02/2020. (iii) Janardhanan Vs. The Maintenance Tribunal Appellate Authority and District Collector and Others. 26. In case of Smt. Ranjana Makaharia Vs. Mayadevi Makharia learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of eviction passed by the maintenance tribunal. That case involves a dispute in between the mother-in-law on one hand and daughter-inlaw on the other hand. The flat was in possession of daughter-in-law and son of the applicant. The flat was in the name of daughter-in law under a registered agreement and her husband was residing there and it was a matrimonial home. Learned Single Judge has considered the main ingredients of Sec. 4 of the said Act. The flat was in possession of daughter-in-law and son of the applicant. The flat was in the name of daughter-in law under a registered agreement and her husband was residing there and it was a matrimonial home. Learned Single Judge has considered the main ingredients of Sec. 4 of the said Act. It was observed that "Application restricts itelf to only recovery of possession of the suit flat occupied by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. Any such application for recovery of possession, except on the footing that such recovery is necessary as a measure of maintenance for the applicant senior citizen, is clearly not maintainable under Ss. 4 or 5 of the Act." (Para 9.) 27. There are various judgments cited before the Learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge observed - "The judgments delivered by Ld. Single Judge as well as Division Bench of our Court and also by Delhi High Court as is noted below have to be understood in that light." (Para 6) 28. The proceedings were initiated under 2007 Act by the mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and the son. There was an eviction order passed by the Tribunal. It was set aside mainly on the ground that 2007 Act does not provide for remedy of eviction. 29. In case of Janardhanan Vs. The Maintenance Tribunal Appellate Authority and District Collector and Others, Divisional Bench of Kerala High Court dealt with a dispute involving Mother on one hand and daughter and son-in-law on the other hand. There was an order of eviction passed by the maintenance tribunal and it was confirmed by the Appellate tribunal and then matter went to the High Court of Kerala. Apart from the proceedings at the instance of mother under 2007 Act, the daughter has also filed a civil suit and there is ex-parte order against the mother. Instead of prosecuting and defending that suit, the Mother approached the tribunal and obtained an order of eviction. Division bench observed : "it is beyond the scope of writ appeal to go into correctness of the Civil Court's judgment; it binds, however. Second, its binding effect accepted, we must acknowledge, that the mother's claim for maintenance is a lis pendence proceeding." (para no. 20) 30. Division bench also considered the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the object of promoting general welfare. Second, its binding effect accepted, we must acknowledge, that the mother's claim for maintenance is a lis pendence proceeding." (para no. 20) 30. Division bench also considered the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the object of promoting general welfare. "But certain enactments which are more responsive to some urgent social demands and have more immediate and more visible impact on social vices by operating more directly to achieve the social reforms. These enactments, concludes the Court, demand an interpretation liberal enough to achieve the legislative process, without doing violence to the language". (para 39) 31. Division bench noted :- "such legislation as aimed at avoiding a mischief and promoting a virtue" "say, a socio-economic objective-- are variably described as remedial or beneficial statutes. It is to observe that remedial statute receives a liberal construction; a penal statute, strict construction". (para 40) 32. On the point of ingredients of Sec. 4, it is noted in para no. 51 that "parent must be without means or with inadequate means. And the children must have refused to maintain him or her. This filial obligation has nothing to do with children's possessing the parent's property or their succeeding to it in future". (para 51.) 33. It is further observed that:- "once the right to own or possess a piece of property is disputed by the members of a family, which includes, for instance, the parents and children, this Act is unavailable". (para 54). 34. On factual aspects it is observed:- "Here, the mother set up an exclusive title to the property, including a house; the daughter, claiming to be a co-owner, set up a rival title. The dispute matured into litigation and resulted into a decree, too. The mother, a party to the litigation, ignored it but pursued parallel litigation. The Tribunal's approach would have been understandable had it ordered maintenance to the mother, after finding that she could not maintain herself and by leaving the property dispute to competent forum.(para 55) Finally the order of eviction in the face of Civil Court decree was held erroneous and unsustainable and it was set aside. (para 57)" 35. In case of S. Vanitha v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru District as referred above the dispute was in between daughter-in-law on one hand and in-laws on the other hand. (para 57)" 35. In case of S. Vanitha v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru District as referred above the dispute was in between daughter-in-law on one hand and in-laws on the other hand. In a proceeding initiated at the instance of in laws under the 2007 Act, the daughter-in-law was asked to vacate the premises in question. Division Bench of Karnataka High Court sustained those orders and observed that "remedy of daughter-in-law for maintenance and shelter lies only against estranged husband as the premises belong to mother-in-law." matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of 2005 Act and 2007 Act and rights flowing to victims / aggrieved persons. It was held that the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law are vulnerable members of the society and Court will have to harmonize their rights. The provisions relating to shared household, the inclusive and exhaustive definition of the word shared household under 2005 Act were considered (para 18 and 19). 36. Furthermore, the provisions of Sec. 36 of 2005 Act were also considered (remedy is an addition to other already available remedies). Furthermore, what will be the approach of the Court in interpreting the provisions of two statutes both containing non-obstante clause was also considered (para 20). While dealing with the aspect of overriding effect of 2007 Act on 2005 Act, it has been observed:- "The above extract indicates that a significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation." (para 21 page 29) 37. Furthermore, it has been observed: "Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007." (Para 21 Page 30) 38. Furthermore, it has been observed: "Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007." (Para 21 Page 30) 38. Finally, the order of eviction was set aside and daughterin-law was granted liberty to pursue remedies as per 2005 Act. Furthermore, the in laws were restrained from evicting the Appellant from forcible dispossession to enable her to pursue her remedies in accordance with 2005 Act. Last direction was issued by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution. 39. Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to distinguish facts of S. Vanitha case. According to him, in case of S. Vanisha their was collusion in between the Mother-in-law and her son against the daughter-in-law whereas in present case the mother-in-law is fighting against both the son and daughter-in-law. Whereas it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the observations in case of S. Vanitha are perfectly applicable to the facts of this case and the facts do not warrant passing of an eviction order and the tribunals while passing the impugned orders have perfectly balanced the rights of two vulnerable Sec. of the society and it does not require any interference. Facts of this case 40. As said earlier, we are not going into larger issue as to whether the eviction order can be passed under the provisions of 2007 Act. We follow the same course of action adopted by this Court (either learned Single Judge or Division Bench). We intend to decide this petition predominantly on two factual aspects :- a. two conflicting rights of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and b. rival ownership rights over the flat in question put up by them against each other. 41. First we will deal with claim and counter claims made by the parties about ownership rights over the flat in question. Petitioner made ownership claim on the basis of probate whereas the respondents complained about probate granted on the basis of forged signatures and protest made about the same. They also pointed out lacunaes in the claim of the petitioner about the gift in favour of her husband Nirnjan by his father Anandlal. Petitioner made ownership claim on the basis of probate whereas the respondents complained about probate granted on the basis of forged signatures and protest made about the same. They also pointed out lacunaes in the claim of the petitioner about the gift in favour of her husband Nirnjan by his father Anandlal. In addition to that they have laid claim over the flat in question on the basis of nomination (of 20%) by Anandlal. Question before us to what extent we can go into it considering limited inquiry contemplated under the provisions of 2007 Act? Challenge to Gift deed and nomination claim 42. There is challenge by respondents to the theory of 'transfer/gift by Anandlal in favour Niranjan'. According to respondents, petitioner has not produced any supporting documents. On other hand, respondents have placed reliance on nomination (20%) by Anandlal in favour of respondent no.2. Both the sides relied upon one judgment each on the point of effect of gift on the nature of property. Whereas on the point of effect of nomination, they have relied upon same judgment in case of Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Co-op Societies and Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 440 . 43. In case of Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and Ors Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai decided in Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019 on 23/09/2019 it was held that burden lies on the party to prove that the property gifted by the donor of the gift was not the self acquired property at the hand of the son but joint property. Whereas in case of C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495 . it was held that the intention of the donor as inferred from the contents of the gift decides whether the donor wants the donee of the gift to be exclusive owner of the gifted property or not. 44. In Indrani Wahil's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the relationship in between the society on one hand and the nominee on the other hand. Such nomination is certainly binding on the society but so far as title of other members of the family on any basis is not affected is a ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 45. Such nomination is certainly binding on the society but so far as title of other members of the family on any basis is not affected is a ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 45. We are neither impressed by the contention about defects in the claim of gift deed made by the petitioner in respect of flat in question nor impressed by the claim made by respondents on the basis of limited nomination. It is for two reasons. One is this Court has already granted Probate. It is presumed that probate was granted on conducting due inquiry. Secondly summary inquiry is contemplated under Sec. 8 of 2007 Act. Respondents can agitate their grievance before competent court. We are not expected to opine about grievance about title of the parties except for limited purpose of deciding the claims as laid down under the provisions of the Act and as interpreted by Constitutional Courts. 46. Now we will go into the issue as to whether the petitioner has made out a case of passing an eviction order and whether the right of respondent no.1 as per 2005 Act will come in her way ? We are of the firm opinion that the observations in case of Vanitha certainly guides us to decide this controversy. Observations of the Tribunals 47. When we have considered the factual aspects and the findings of the Tribunal, what we find is that the arrangement as ordered by the Tribunal is proper. While doing that, the Tribunal has balanced the rights of the senior citizen Mother-in-law on one hand and the right of Daughter-in- law as per 2005 Act on the other hand. It is sufficient to mention that if the daughter-in-law will bring on record the circumstances wherein there is a threat to her right over shared household, certainly her right needs to be protected. However after considering the factual aspects and interpretation of law, we are of the considered opinion that the arrangement made by the Tribunal though temporary in nature, it cannot last for unlimited period. We think that the respondent no.1 for asserting her right as per the provisions of 2005 Act needs to establish the same in Court of law. So for limited period, we intend to continue the arrangement. We will give reasons for our opinion hereafter. 48. We think that the respondent no.1 for asserting her right as per the provisions of 2005 Act needs to establish the same in Court of law. So for limited period, we intend to continue the arrangement. We will give reasons for our opinion hereafter. 48. After perusing both the judgments, it can certainly be said that the relationship between the parties are strained. Even though they are closely related, it seems that they have lost confidence amongst themselves. Reasons may be different. So to say habits of respondents no.2 about drinking alcohol, not earning by him, life style of petitioner, petitioner was required to do catering business, basic difference in approach about life style (that to say petitioner preferring vegetarian food and respondent's liking for non vegetarian food) etc. are some of the areas of difference/dispute. There are circumstances referred in both the judgments which throws light on their strained relationship. 49. The petitioner filed complaint to the tribunal on 26/4/2019. she was required to approach the Malbar Hill police on 31/7/2019. She has protested about objectionable behaviour of respondents including preparing duplicate keys of the room of the petitioner to the police. Petitioner has also complained to municipal officials about payment of property tax. It finds place in the letter 20/6/2019. Bone of dispute is the occupancy and ownership of the flat in question. Even the respondent no1 has demanded substantial amount of Rs.5.00 crores from the petitioner. There are instances of hospitalization of respondent no. 2. It was due to drinking habits as per petitioner and according to respondent no.1 it was due to mental illness. Petitioner was required to work and earn income for her livelihood. She started catering business. But respondents have also created obstructions. On one occasion respondent no.1 has broken the crockery. Even out of anger on one occasion, respondent no1 has torn the clothes of petitioner given to laundry. All this has laid to deteriorating the health of the petitioner. Even she was required to stay with her daughters. One of such incident took place when petitioner was restrained from entering her rooms in the flat. This was in the month of April 2019. She could not open the lock of the room. And she was required to call building manager 50. From the side of the respondents there are also correspondence. One of such incident took place when petitioner was restrained from entering her rooms in the flat. This was in the month of April 2019. She could not open the lock of the room. And she was required to call building manager 50. From the side of the respondents there are also correspondence. In two of such correspondence, there was protest about signatures of respondent no.2 on probate. In the letter written to the society there was such protest made (page no. 294). similar is the letter at page no. 301. There is a notice dtd. 3/3/2021 issued by respondent no.1 to the police making grievance about voluntariness of the will of Anandlal. Even Malbar Hill police have recorded the statement of respondent no.1. Respondents have filed certain CDs containing recording of misbehaviour of the petitioner with respondents. Respondents have serious objection to the behaviour of petitioner mixing with rich people, wearing costly ornaments. 51. We have quoted few of the above instances as referred by the both the tribunals in the impugned judgments. It can certainly inferred that the relationship has not remained cordial. This Court can certainly understand that it is difficult for either of the parties to stay peacefully in the flat in question. At the same time we thought that the arrangement made by the tribunal is at present in the best interest of the parties. On one hand he has directed respondents to execute undertaking of the good behaviour whereas on other hand directed parties to reside in separate room in same flat. Whereas the appellate tribunal has taken adequate precaution in directing the tribunal to call periodical reports of social welfare officer. It is not the Respondent No. 2's son who is contesting the litigation tooth and nail but it is the Respondent No. 1 is contesting. It is true that both are women. Ultimately Court has to consider what would be the effect on the life of the Respondent No. 1 if there is eviction order passed in favour of the Petitioner. We are also satisfied that passing of an eviction order at this juncture will not serve the ends of the Justice. 52. The provisions of 2007 Act contemplates a summary inquiry while dealing with the proceedings. The intention of the legislature needs to be considered. They want to protect the interests of the senior citizens against the children/relatives. We are also satisfied that passing of an eviction order at this juncture will not serve the ends of the Justice. 52. The provisions of 2007 Act contemplates a summary inquiry while dealing with the proceedings. The intention of the legislature needs to be considered. They want to protect the interests of the senior citizens against the children/relatives. The statement of objects and reasons mentions that such senior citizens may not be required to follow the long procedure of approaching the Civil Court and that is why summary remedy is provided. No doubt it is true that there is a probate issued in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of will executed by her husband. So certainly the Petitioner can claim exclusive ownership over the flat in question. At the same time it is not disputed that the daughter-in-law after her marriage and the son since beginning were occupying the flat in question. Certainly, the daughter-in-law is having a right of a shared household as per the provisions of 2005 Act. It recognizes the right of residence in the matrimonial house. It can certainly be considered as a matrimonial house of Respondent No.1. 53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru District (supra) has observed that the rights are conferred by the Parliament on the members of the society who are vulnerable. It is true that 2007 Act is given overriding effect. At the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of 2007 Act cannot be interpreted in such a way that the daughter-in-law is thrown out of the matrimonial house. 54. At the same time even through we are satisfied about above arrangement, we feel that it cannot be permanent. We think that the Respondent No. 1 needs to take steps for ascertaining her right as wife/daughter-in-law as recognized as per 2005 Act. So we intend to continue this arrangement for a period of six months. We intend the Respondent No. 1 to take steps to assert her right within that period. If the Respondent No. 1 desires to initiate action, the Competent Court is at liberty to take appropriate decision including protection/residence order. If the Respondent No. 1 fails or does not initiate any action within that period, eviction order will automatically follow. We intend the Respondent No. 1 to take steps to assert her right within that period. If the Respondent No. 1 desires to initiate action, the Competent Court is at liberty to take appropriate decision including protection/residence order. If the Respondent No. 1 fails or does not initiate any action within that period, eviction order will automatically follow. We are saying so for the reason that the circumstances mentioned above do suggest the strained relationship in between the parties. As on today, there is a probate granted in favour of the petitioner. That needs to be given some weightage. 55. So what we feel is that the Tribunals have arrived at the best arrangement considering the facts of the case. So we do not find any reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction except the observations made in earlier paragraphs. Hence the following order is passed : ORDER (a) The residential arrangement made by the Maintenance Tribunal and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed for a period of six months from today. (b) Respondent No.1 is at liberty to assert her rights as per the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 within the period of six months from today. (c) If she does not take steps, the respondents are evicted from the flat in question and they are directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the flat in question to the petitioner. (d) If respondent no.1 take steps as mentioned above, the appropriate authority is at liberty to decide her claim on the basis of merits and the residential arrangement made by the Tribunals will be subject to decision taken by the appropriate authority. (e) There is no interference in the rest of the arrangement made by the Tribunals. 56. Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. Interim Application, if any, is also disposed of.