DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.) Index A. Background B. Submissions C. Legislative scheme: Senior Citizens Act 2007 D. A woman's right of residence: safeguard against domestic violence E. Harmonising competing reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007 F. Summation A. Background The present dispute arises out of an application filed by the Second and Third respondents against the appellant, who is their daughter-in-law. The Second and Third respondents are the parents of the Fourth respondent, who is the estranged spouse of the appellant. The Second and Third respondents filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007[1], and inter alia, sought the appellant and her daughter's eviction from a residential house in North Bengaluru[2]. [1] "Senior Citizens Act 2007" [2] "suit premises"
(2.) The Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, allowed the application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant unsuccessfully pursued a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Single Judge, and in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 17 September 2019 held that the suit premises belonged to the mother-in-law (the Second respondent) of the appellant and the remedy of the appellant for maintenance and shelter lies only against her estranged husband (the Fourth respondent). The Division Bench upheld the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises before 31 December 2019. Challenging the jurisdiction of the authorities[3] to decree her eviction under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, the appellant has moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [3] The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District
(3.) The appellant and the Fourth respondent were married on 30 May 2002. Soon thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. The appellant alleges that she was harassed for dowry and even compelled to institute a suit for partition against her father in 2003[4] which she later withdrew, after her spouse allegedly deserted her to be in a relationship with another woman. The subject matter of the controversy is a residential house situated at Gangondonahalli, Dasanapura, Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The land was purchased by the Fourth respondent on 2 May 2002, a few months before the appellant married him. The appellant alleges that her father had financed a portion of this purchase. [4] OS 211 of 2003 ;