Judicial interpretation has played a major role in the development of the legal relationship between the rights granted to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act) and the residence rights of daughters-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). In the absence of an explicit statutory relationship between these two welfare legislations, the judiciary has been forced to evolve principles of harmonious interpretation to deal with conflicts arising in joint living spaces. It traces the judicial trajectory from the restrictive interpretation of “shared household” in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, through the expansive and gender-sensitive re-articulation in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, to the principle of harmonisation established in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. This research aims to critically examine the development of judicial trends in this area, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court’s verdict in S. Vanitha judgment, thereby highlighting the judiciary’s role in harmonising conflicting welfare legislations by grounding its reasoning in constitutional principles of dignity, equality, and substantive justice.