JUDGMENT : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging Order dated 27 October 2020 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by which the Tribunal has directed Petitioner and her husband (Respondent No.2) to vacate the possession of the premises comprising of three rooms on ground floor of the structure in question. The Order of Maintenance Tribunal was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by Order dated 5 March 2021, which is also the subject matter of present Petition. 2. There is no dispute to the position that the structure in which the concerned premises, comprising of three rooms are located, belongs to Respondent No.1 who is the father-in-law of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 6 June 2015 and started living in a joint family in the house of Respondent No.1-father-in-law. Respondent No.3 is the brother-in-law of Petitioner No.1. The structure comprising of ground floor plus two upper floors and it appears that Petitioner No.1 and her husband resided together in the three rooms located on the ground floor of the structure. On 13 May 2016, a daughter (Petitioner No.2) was born to the couple. It appears that there is marital discord between Petitioner No.1 and her husband-Respondent No.2. 3. In the above background, Respondent No.1 filed Application before Maintenance Tribunal on 26 March 2019 alleging that on 17 August 2017 Petitioner No.1 took forcible possession of the concerned premises on the ground floor. Petitioner No.1 has filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( DV Act ) against her husband. 4. On 27 October 2022 the Maintenance Tribunal has passed Order allowing the Application filed by Applicant and directing Petitioner and her husband to vacate the ground floor premises of the structure. Appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the Order of Maintenance Tribunal is rejected by Order dated 5 March 2021. By Order dated 6 December 2021 this Court has stayed implementation of the impugned Order dated 27 October 2020 and 5 March 2021. The said interim arrangement continues to operate till today on account of which Petitioners continues to reside in the concerned ground floor premises. 5. I have heard Mr. By Order dated 6 December 2021 this Court has stayed implementation of the impugned Order dated 27 October 2020 and 5 March 2021. The said interim arrangement continues to operate till today on account of which Petitioners continues to reside in the concerned ground floor premises. 5. I have heard Mr. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners and Mr. Parshurami, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and 2. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Tribunal in their respective impugned Orders. I have also perused the record of the case. 6. There is a marital discord between Petitioner No.1 and her husband Respondent No.2 and this appears to be the possible reason why the father-in-law seeking eviction of daughter-in-law. In several instances it is observed that the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be misused for the purpose of ensuring eviction of daughter-in-law, who has marital discord with her husband. This Court in Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani Vs. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors. in Writ Petition (L) No. 28282 of 2023 decided on 18 March 2024, has taken into consideration the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021) 15 SCC 730 and has held in paragraphs 21 to 25 as under: “21. The interplay between the provisions of Senior Citizens Act and D. V. Act has been considered by the Apex Court in its Judgment in S. Vanitha (supra). In the case before the Apex Court, senior citizens had filed application before the Tribunal against their daughter-in- law. The application was allowed and the daughter-in-law was directed to vacate the premises. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the premises belonged to the mother-in-law and upheld the Order of the Tribunal. The Appellant contended before the Apex Court that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act were manipulated to defeat her rights under Section 17 of the D. V. Act. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act was questioned to order eviction of the Appellant who was entitled to shared household under D. V. Act. The Apex Court has accordingly considered provisions of Senior Citizens Act and D. V. Act. and the interplay amongst both the enactments by observing in paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 as under : 37. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act was questioned to order eviction of the Appellant who was entitled to shared household under D. V. Act. The Apex Court has accordingly considered provisions of Senior Citizens Act and D. V. Act. and the interplay amongst both the enactments by observing in paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 as under : 37. The above extract indicates that a significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognise the rights of women to secure housing and to recognise 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 Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act, 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. 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. 38. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7. These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for inquiry, with all powers of the civil courts, under Section 8. The jurisdiction of the civil courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the overriding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act, 2005. The jurisdiction of the civil courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the overriding effect for remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV Act, 2005. The PWDV Act, 2005 is also in the nature of a special legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act, 2005. Section 2629 of the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present case where the suit premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by the law. it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the PWDV Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a "shared household" under Section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005. In the event that the "aggrieved woman" obtains a relief from a tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, she shall be duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act, 2005, as per sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act, 2005, This course of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDV Act, 2005, of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realised. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realisation. 39. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realisation. 39. Adverting to the factual situation at hand, on construing the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is evident that it applies to a situation where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred On the other hand, the appellant's simple plea is that the suit premises constitute her "shared household" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act. 2005. We have also seen the series of transactions which took place in respect of the property the spouse of the appellant purchased it in his own name a Tew months before the marriage but subsequently sold it, after a few years. under a registered sale deed at the same price to his father (the father-in-law of the appellant), who in turn gifted it to his spouse ie the mother-in- law of the appellant after divorce proceedings were instituted by the fourth respondent. Parallel to this, the appellant had instituted proceedings of dowry harassment against her mother-in-law and her estranged spouse, and her spouse had instituted divorce proceedings. The appellant had also filed proceedings for maintenance against the fourth respondent and the divorce proceedings are pending. It is subsequent to these events, that the second and third respondents instituted an application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The fact that specific proceedings under the PWDV Act, 2005 had not been instituted when the application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed, should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an order of eviction deprives her from pursuing her claim of entitlement under the law. The inability of a woman to access judicial remedies may, as this case exemplifies, be a consequence of destitution, ignorance or lack of resources. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household. A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws (second and third respondents) or that her estranged spouse (fourth respondent) is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the PWDV Act, 2005. 22. The Apex Court thus held that right of a woman to secure residence in respect of shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act. The Court further held that the overriding effect of remedies under Senior Citizens Act cannot be incorporated to preclude all other competent remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the D. V. Act. That the D. V. Act is also a special legislation enacted for the purpose of correcting gender discrimination. The Court held that in the light of dominating purpose of both the legislations, the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, while granting remedy of maintenance, cannot pass an order which would obviate competing remedies under the D. V. Act, especially the relief for a residence order to be obtained from a Civil/Criminal Court under D. V. Act. The Apex Court thus held that in the event of composite dispute, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to mold the relief and that Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of woman’s right to shared household under Section 17 of the D. V. Act. 23. The Apex Court accordingly summed up its conclusions in paragraph No.40 and set aside the Order of the Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act, granting liberty to the Appellant to pursue her remedies under D. V. Act. The Apex Court held in paragraph No. 40 and issued following directions in Para 41 as under: 40. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act, 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The second and third respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum. 41. For the above reasons, while allowing the appeal, we issue the following directions: 41.1. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17-9-2019 [S. Vanitha v. Commr., 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3171] affirming the order of eviction against the appellant shall stand set aside with the consequence that the order of the Assistant Commissioner ordering and directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises shall stand set aside. 41.2. We leave it open to the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to seek the help of the District Legal Services Authorities and if the appellant does so, all necessary aid and assistance shall be furnished to her in pursuing her legal remedies and rights. 41.3. IA No. 111352 of 2020 for restoration of the electricity connection is allowed by directing the fourth respondent to take all necessary steps for restoration of the electricity connection to the premises within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The fourth respondent shall also continue to pay the electricity dues in future. 41.4. In order to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005, there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises or from creating any right, title and interest in favour of any third party in any manner whatsoever for a period of one year, to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections. 41.5. The directions contained in sub-paras 41.3 and 41.4, above emanate in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. 24. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies under the PWDV Act, 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections. 41.5. The directions contained in sub-paras 41.3 and 41.4, above emanate in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. 24. There is no dispute to the position that the present case involves contesting claims of Senior Citizens to seek an order of eviction under Senior Citizens Act and of the daughter-in-law to seek residence in shared household under provisions of Section 17 of the D. V. Act. The Tribunal ought to have noticed this aspect while adjudicating prayer of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking eviction of Petitioner from the said flat. Perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal would indicate that it has not considered Judgment of the Apex Court in S.Vanitha. 25. When the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the Judgment of Apex Court in S. Vanitha, it leaves no manner of doubt that there is a contesting claim between Petitioner to seek residence in shared household under Section 17 of the D. V. Act and of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Senior Citizens Act. No doubt Maintenance Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act is not supposed to decide the claim of Petitioner to residence in shared household under Section 17 of the D. V. Act. However, as held by the Apex Court in S.Vanitha, when a contesting claim is presented before the Tribunal under both the enactments, Tribunal must mold the relief to ensure that the rights which woman seeks to protect under the D. V. Act are not interfered with, while deciding summary proceedings under Senior Citizens Act.” 7. In Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani (supra) this Court has evolved a formula of permitting the daughter-in-law to occupy the premises belonging to the senior citizen (father-in-law) for a period of 6 months with a view to enable the daughter-in-law to secure appropriate orders for provision of shares household from the Magistrate Court deciding proceedings under the DV Act. This Court has held in paragraph 35 to 38 as under: “35. This Court has held in paragraph 35 to 38 as under: “35. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, I am of the view that the facts of the case are such that the order of eviction passed by the Maintenance Tribunal after conducting summary inquiry under the Senior Citizens Act would result in frustrating the relief of residence in shared household that Petitioner seeks in her compliant under the DV Act. Though Petitioner’s husband is also directed to vacate the said flat and though he has not challenged the Maintenance Tribunal’s Order, he continues to reside in the flat. This is another factor which makes Petitioner believe that the order of Maintenance Tribunal for eviction of the couple is just a ploy to ensure only Petitioner’s ouster from home. It is not disputed that Petitioner is not earning herself and that she has no other place to reside. Therefore, Petitioner cannot be rendered homeless to ensure peace of mind of the senior citizens. Petitioner’s husband has so far not made any arrangement for residence of the couple despite passage of 6 long months from the date of Tribunal’s order. 36. If Petitioner was to reside in a nuclear family with her husband in a separate residence from her in-laws, Section 17 of DV Act would protect her from being thrown out of the house owned by her husband. However, where the wife stays in a joint family with her in-laws in a house owned by her in-laws, would she be put to a disadvantageous position by directing her ouster under the Senior Citizens Act in a summary inquiry thereby frustrating her rights under Section 17 of the DV Act? Does it mean that a wife staying separately from her in-laws enjoys better protection than the one who chooses to reside in a joint family with her in-laws? The answer to the question would obviously be in the negative. Therefore, where a situation arises when a contest is noticed between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and of a women under DV Act, balancing act needs to be done and the rights of senior citizens cannot be decided in isolation. 37. The answer to the question would obviously be in the negative. Therefore, where a situation arises when a contest is noticed between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and of a women under DV Act, balancing act needs to be done and the rights of senior citizens cannot be decided in isolation. 37. Though in every case, order of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be made subject to proceedings filed by wife under DV Act, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the husband has not made any arrangements for residence of Petitioner, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate who is in seisin of the DV Compliant takes decision on atleast the interim prayers of Petitioner. I am informed that the learned Magistrate is in the process of deciding the application for interim relief in the DV Compliant filed by Petitioner. Till the said application for interim relief is decided, Petitioner needs to be protected. Afterall, she has resided in the same house for the last 27 long years with her husband and parents-in-laws. No doubt, the duty to provide residence to Petitioner would be primarily that of the husband. Petitioner’s right of residence in shared household need not be in the said flat and the learned Magistrate would decide whether she can be provided another accommodation or whether her residence in the said flat needs to be continued. The family owns other immovable properties also, which includes a residential flat in the same building (used as office) and two offices in Mumbai, which are owned by the husband. The learned Magistrate would decide Petitioner’s prayer for residence in shared household accordingly. Till the same is decided, at least at the interim stage, the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal directing Petitioner’s eviction needs to be suspended. 38. Writ Petition accordingly partly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order: (i) Order dated 18 September 2023 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, to the extent of directing Petitioner’s eviction from the said flat, shall not be implemented for a period of 6 months, during which time, Petitioner shall get adjudicated the prayer for interim relief in Compliant filed under DV Act. (ii) The Order dated 18 September 2023 of the Maintenance Tribunal qua Petitioner’s eviction from the said flat, shall be subject to further orders that would be passed in the Complaint filed by Petitioner under DV Act. (iii) The Complaint filed by Petitioner under DV Act, including the application(s) for interim relief filed therein, shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made in the judgment. (iv) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. 8. Following the ratio laid down in Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani, I would have been justified in directing Petitioner No.1 to secure appropriate orders from DV Court with regard to her right to shared household. However, in the present case, it appears that the learned Magistrate has passed Order dated 27 July 2021 taking note of the Order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and directing Respondent No.2 husband to make alternate arrangements for stay of Petitioners before their eviction by Respondent No.1. 9. It must be borne in mind that the disputed premises belong to the father-in-law, who does not have the statutory obligation to maintain the Petitioners or to provide them the shared household. The husband is the not the owner of the premises in question. Therefore some day, Petitioners will have to vacated the premises. 10. Considering the above factual position, this Court queried with Mr. Parshurami as to whether any arrangement can be made for residence of Petitioners till the matrimonial disputes are sorted out. After taking instructions, Mr. Parshurami has made a statement that Respondent No. 2-husband shall provide monthly amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioners, so that they can make necessary arrangement for taking alternate premises on rent/licence for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, Mr. Parshurami has handed over cheque of Rs.3,60,000/- to Mr. Kamat. It will be open to the Petitioner No.1 to encash the said cheque. The said amount would enable Petitioners to scout for alternate premises and to pay rent /licence fees for a period of 3 years. 11. At this stage Mr. Kamat would make a request that since Petitioner No.2 is taking education in nearby school in 4 th standard, Petitioner be permitted to occupy the concerned premises till 31 March 2026. The request, though not agreed to by Mr. Parshurami, appears to be reasonable. 12. 11. At this stage Mr. Kamat would make a request that since Petitioner No.2 is taking education in nearby school in 4 th standard, Petitioner be permitted to occupy the concerned premises till 31 March 2026. The request, though not agreed to by Mr. Parshurami, appears to be reasonable. 12. In view of the above, I proceed to dispose of the Petition by passing following Order: (i) Orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on 27 October 2020 and by the Appellate Tribunal on 5 March 2021 are not disturbed. (ii) Respondent No.2 shall pay to the Petitioner amount of Rs.3,60,000/- representing rent/licence fees, for securing alternate premises for a period of 3 years upto 31 March 2029. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 has handed over to the Petitioner No.1 a cheque of Rs.3,60,000/- which Petitioner No.1 would be at liberty to encash. (iii) Petitioners are permitted to occupy the concerned premises upto 31 March 2026. In the event Petitioners fail to vacate possession of the concerned premises by 31 March 2026, the Orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal as upheld by the Appellate Tribunal shall forthwith be enforced by provision of adequate Police protection. (iv) In the event the matrimonial disputes between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are not resolved by 31 March 2029, Petitioner would be at liberty to secure appropriate order from Family Court/DV Court in respect of further arrangement for their residence beyond 1 April 2029. 13. With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of.