SMT. S. VANITHA v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN

SMT. S. VANITHA v.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 1061 it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household, as under the PWDV Act 2005. [Para 20][1082- G-H; 1083-A-C]

3.2 Principles of statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two special acts containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall typically prevail. In the present case, the Senior Citizen’s Act 2007 contains a non obstante clause. However, in the event of a conflict between special Acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise. In the present case, Section 36 of the PWDV Act 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non-obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that operates in a separate field. [Para 20][1083-C-D; 1084-B-C]