Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Of Daughter-In-Law From In-Laws' House To Protect Their Right To Peaceful Residence
The Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law and her son from her in-laws' house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, holding that the senior citizens' right to peaceful residence must prevail in the facts of the case.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a writ petition filed by a widow and her son challenging an order of the Divisional Commissioner directing them to vacate the in-laws' property.
The dispute arose after the death of the petitioner's husband in February 2020. The woman and her son continued residing in the house, while disputes surfaced regarding family properties, LIC policies and other financial assets.
The in-laws subsequently approached authorities under the Senior Citizens Act alleging ill-treatment and seeking eviction of the petitioners from the property.
Initially, the District Magistrate directed the petitioners to vacate only the ground floor portion of the property. However, on appeal, the Divisional Commissioner ordered eviction from the entire premises after observing that relations between the parties had become severely acrimonious and cohabitation had become impossible.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the property constituted a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that the daughter-in-law had a right to continue residing there.
They also claimed rights in properties allegedly acquired from ancestral business funds and in LIC proceeds of the deceased husband.
The Court, however, held that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are summary in nature and cannot be converted into forums for adjudicating complex civil disputes relating to ownership, inheritance, ancestral property claims or financial entitlements.
It observed, “The jurisdiction of the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act is circumscribed to the limited but significant objective of protecting senior citizens and ensuring that they are able to reside peacefully and securely in their own property without interference.”
Reliance was placed on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021) where the Supreme Court held that woman's right to reside in a shared household must be balanced against the rights of the Senior Citizens to live in peace, especially when the household in question belongs to them.
In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner was not financially dependent, observing that she was a government school teacher earning more than ₹1 lakh per month and that her children were grown up.
The Court also took note of an alternative accommodation already in possession of the petitioners, and recorded the father-in-law's statement that he was willing to hand over the documents of that property after the petitioners vacated the house.
As such, the Court refused to interfere and directed the petitioners to vacate the property within 45 days.
Appearance: Mouli Bhattacharjee, Advocate for Petitioners; Ms Avni Singh, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Mr Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Archana Gaur, DHCLSC, Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advocates for R-2 and 3.
Case title: RT v. GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12721/2023