“Daughter-in-law Falls Within ‘Children’ Under Senior Citizens Act When in Possession of Property”: Kerala HC Upholds Mother-in-law’s Right to Reside

“Mere Apprehension of Harassment Cannot Deny a Senior Citizen Residence in Her Own Property”, Kerala High Court upheld the Maintenance Tribunal’s order permitting a senior citizen mother-in-law to reside on the first floor of the same building occupied by her daughter-in-law and family on the ground floor.

Justice Viju Abraham dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order, holding that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) can co-exist without one nullifying the other, where no prejudice is caused to the protection orders under the PWDV Act.

The second respondent, Ramani, mother-in-law of the first petitioner Anila, approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act seeking permission to reside in the first floor of a two-storey house. The petitioners, occupying the ground floor, resisted the request, citing an interim protection order under Section 18 of the PWDV Act (Ext.P6) restraining the mother-in-law from causing nuisance or hindrance to their peaceful residence.

The dispute was complicated by property transfers: originally owned by Ramani, the property had been gifted to her son (Anila’s husband), but later restored to her through a civil court decree (Ext.R2(b) & Ext.R2(c)). Photographs (Ext.R2(a)) showed a separate entrance to the first floor.

Interplay Between Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act

Petitioners argued, citing Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021 (1) KLT 80), that a woman’s right to a shared household under Section 17 PWDV Act cannot be overridden by summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court clarified: “The Apex Court in Vanitha has not held that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be invoked when there is a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act. It only held that remedies under one cannot preclude benefits under the other.”

Given the separate entrances and floors, the Court found no interference with the petitioners’ shared household rights.

Maintainability Against Daughter-in-law

A key contention was that the Senior Citizens Act allows action only against “children” or “relatives” as defined, and a daughter-in-law is neither.

Applying a purposive interpretation, and relying on Deepika H. v. Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Others (2020 KHC 3702), the Court held:

“Where the daughter-in-law is in possession of the property and the relief sought is for residence, she falls within the sweep of ‘children’ under Section 2(a). Refusal would defeat the object of the Act to provide a speedy remedy.”

The Court emphasised that “includes” in Section 2(a) enlarges the scope beyond a rigid reading.

Apprehension of Harassment

The petitioners claimed that prior incidents of harassment justified denying the mother-in-law residence. The Court rejected this:

“Mere apprehension cannot be a ground to deny a senior citizen residence in her own property, especially when she undertakes to reside separately on the first floor with a distinct entrance.”

The Court pointed to remedies under Section 31 PWDV Act for violation of protection orders, and Section 19(f) PWDV Act to seek alternate accommodation if necessary.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s order (Ext.P10) permitting the mother-in-law’s residence on the first floor balanced both parties’ rights, protected the daughter-in-law’s PWDV Act entitlements, and advanced the Senior Citizens Act’s objective of ensuring residence for elderly persons.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2025