The Delhi High Court has set aside the eviction of a woman from her matrimonial home, holding that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to deprive a daughter-in-law of her right to reside in premises claimed as a matrimonial or shared household.
Justice Amit Mahajan said the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully and with dignity must be protected, but these rights have to be considered alongside the residence protections available to women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the woman against an order of the divisional commissioner that had upheld her eviction from the property.
The High Court observed that while the mother-in-law was a senior citizen entitled to protection of her property and peaceful enjoyment of her residence, the Senior Citizens Act could not be invoked in a manner that automatically displaced the daughter-in-law’s claim to residence in the shared household.
Multiple Proceedings Pending Between Family Members
The dispute arose from matrimonial discord between the woman and her in-laws over her continued residence in the property. She had married in December 2021 and was residing there with her husband and their minor son.
The court noted that several proceedings were pending between the parties. These included a civil suit instituted by the minor son seeking injunction, declaration and partition, divorce proceedings, guardianship proceedings, domestic violence proceedings and an FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty.
The woman’s father-in-law had died in 2018 without leaving a valid will. In 2019, her husband and his brother executed a registered relinquishment deed surrendering their respective shares in the property in favour of their mother.
The mother-in-law subsequently initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act seeking eviction of her son and daughter-in-law.
In March 2025, the district magistrate ordered their eviction after holding that the mother-in-law was the owner of the property. The daughter-in-law challenged the decision before the divisional commissioner, but her appeal was dismissed in September 2025.
The divisional commissioner held that under the Domestic Violence Act, the obligation to provide alternative accommodation was on the husband and not on the mother-in-law. The authority also took into account the mother-in-law’s advanced age, her stage-4 cancer and the hostile atmosphere arising from the continuing litigation between the family members.
Woman Claimed Property Was Her Shared Household
Before the High Court, the daughter-in-law argued that the property constituted her matrimonial and shared household and that her residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act could not be extinguished merely because the husband and his brother had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of their mother.
She also disputed the validity and effect of the relinquishment deed and contended that the property was ancestral, with her minor son having rights in it.
The High Court said the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be interpreted harmoniously, and rights created under one statute cannot automatically be treated as overriding rights available under the other.
The court further held that a relinquishment deed executed within the family, under which the husband and his brother transferred their shares to their mother, could not by itself extinguish the daughter-in-law’s residence rights when the deed’s validity and legal effect were themselves disputed and pending consideration before a civil court.
The judge also stressed the significance of protecting the dwelling where the residence of a minor child was involved.
The court observed on September 28 that the mother-in-law’s status as a senior citizen entitled her to live peacefully and with dignity in her property. At the same time, it said the protections under the Senior Citizens Act could not be used to deprive a daughter-in-law of residence in premises she claimed to have occupied as her matrimonial or shared household.
Setting aside the eviction, the High Court clarified that it had not decided questions relating to title, ownership or the ultimate validity of the relinquishment deed.
Those issues, the court said, would remain open for determination in the appropriate civil and matrimonial proceedings before the competent forums.
