 The Indian Supreme Court recently passed a landmark, if I may say so, quite an offbeat judgment wherein it ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act does not have any special precedence or superiority vis-à-vis the right of residence and dwelling of a woman in respect of a shared house as contemplated under the confines of Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act. The progressive judgment was authored and delivered by Justice Dhananjay Chandrachur in a civil appeal titled S. Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner Bangaluru Urban District. The crux of the ruling being that a legal right of a woman to have a home and shelter or dwelling where it is a shared household cannot be undone by an order of eviction prompted on account of a summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act. The judgment of the Supreme Court opines that under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 there is an enabling authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or a parent. Eviction in other words would be an incident of the right to maintenance and protection however this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute. It was necessary to review that the situation in the case related to the eviction of the daughter-in-law said the Supreme Court and the Court went on to settle that allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force or effect in all situations irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 would defeat the object and purpose which the parliament sought to achieve in enacting the letter legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left deprived or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally the Court felt that the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 cannot be ignored. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed, said the Court. 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. This is what the Supreme Court opined. Thus in the event of a composite dispute, as it is in the current case in laws versus dotting law versus in laws, the Supreme Court felt that it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal which is constituted under the Senior Citizens Act to appropriately mould the relief based on the competing claims of the parties where the claims are under the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act 2007. Both claims have to be reviewed. Accordingly the eviction order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside by the Supreme Court and I feel that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 cannot be deployed in a way that they override the provisions of other laws especially the ones dealing with women's rights in respect of Domestic Violence Act 2005. So another victory for the daughters-in-law, women power is clearly in play.