The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Letter Patent's Appeal filed by a mother-in-law seeking eviction of her daughter-in-law from a residential property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, holding that the statute cannot be pressed into service to adjudicate matrimonial or property disputes or to evict an estranged daughter-in-law who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the shared household.

Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur said, "The underlying objective of the Act of 2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes. They cannot be used to evict an estranged daughter-in-law, who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the shared household..."

The appellant, owner of a residential property, sought eviction of her daughter-in-law (respondent No.3) by invoking the Act of 2007, contending that after her husband's death, her two sons had resided in the property while paying her rent (as reflected in income tax returns), and that when her younger son (respondent No.4) stopped paying rent and vacated the premises, his wife began harassing her.

Her writ petition seeking eviction was dismissed by the Single Judge, who found that the application before the Maintenance Tribunal had in fact been filed at the instance of the appellant's son to set up a defence in separate, pending proceedings initiated by his estranged wife under the same Act.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the private respondents possessed no independent or pre-existing right in the property and could reside there only with her permission, and that the Single Judge erred in concluding that the Act of 2007 proceedings had been engineered by her son to settle personal scores with his estranged wife.

The Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's reasoning, noting that the plea of non-payment of rent by son had neither been raised before the Maintenance Tribunal nor substantiated before the writ court, reinforcing the finding that the proceedings were a device to aid the son in the matrimonial dispute. The Court held:

"The underlying objective of the Act of 2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes. They cannot be used to evict an estranged daughter-in-law, who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the shared household as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others, (2021) 15 SCC 730."

The Court also found it significant that the property had devolved in equal shares on the appellant and both her sons upon her husband's death, yet she chose to proceed only against her younger son and his wife, without any action against her elder son, a circumstance the Court held further reinforced the inference that the real purpose of the proceedings was to aid her son in the matrimonial dispute rather than to secure her own maintenance or welfare.

Dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal for lack of merit, the Court held that while the appeal deserved to be dismissed with heavy costs, it was refraining from doing so in view of the appellant's advanced age.

Case Title: Anuradha Bansal v. District Magistrate and others

Case No.: LPA-2464-2026

Mr. Sachit Sehijpal, Advocate (THROUGH V.C.) and Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, Haryana.

Click here to read order