The Delhi High Court has held that a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a shared household is not indefeasible and must be considered against the right of a senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life. A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law’s property while also rejecting a challenge to the validity of the eviction provisions under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Punam against a July 7, 2022 order of the Divisional Commissioner directing her to vacate the property and hand over peaceful possession to her mother-in-law, a senior citizen. The petitioner had also sought a declaration that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules were ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner married the son of respondent no. 2 in April 1996. Following matrimonial discord, she instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in 2018 and sought, among other reliefs, a residence order under Section 19 restraining her mother-in-law from dispossessing her from the shared household at Gautam Nagar, New Delhi.
The mother-in-law later initiated proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules seeking the petitioner’s eviction. The District Magistrate rejected the application in February 2021 after considering the material on record and the inquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
The Divisional Commissioner, however, allowed the mother-in-law’s appeal in July 2022 and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. That order was challenged before the High Court.
Petitioner Relied On Right To Shared Household
The petitioner argued that Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act gives every woman in a domestic relationship a right to reside in a shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the property.
It was also contended that since her application seeking a residence order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act was still pending, an eviction order could not have been passed against her.
The petitioner further challenged Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv), arguing that the Senior Citizens Act itself does not expressly provide for eviction and that the State Government had exceeded its delegated rule-making power by creating such a remedy through the 2009 Rules.
Right To Shared Household Must Be Considered Alongside Senior Citizen’s Rights
On the merits, the High Court noted that the Divisional Commissioner had recorded that the petitioner had a separate house at Bahadurgarh and was employed as a Post Graduate Teacher with sufficient income to reside independently.
The Divisional Commissioner had also noted that the senior citizen wanted to spend her remaining life peacefully and should not be dragged into disputes and litigation arising out of matrimonial discord between her son and daughter-in-law.
Referring to Section 4(3) of the Senior Citizens Act, the High Court observed that the obligation of children to maintain their parents extends to their needs so that they may lead a normal life.
The Bench held:
“On account of marital discord between the petitioner and her husband if the respondent no.2 is not able to live normally and peacefully in the evening of her life, who is otherwise entitled to live peacefully and not haunted by the matrimonial discord between her son and daughter-in-law, in our opinion, the order of eviction of the petitioner has rightly been passed.”
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s claim to continue residing in the shared household was not indefeasible and had to be weighed against the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully.
It noted that the petitioner was employed, earned a decent salary and had a separate house.
“Her claim to reside in the shared household not being indefeasible has to be considered vis-à-vis right of the respondent no.2, who is a senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life.”
Senior Citizens Rules Valid
The Court also rejected the challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules.
It examined Sections 22 and 32 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and held that the State Government was empowered to provide for eviction as part of a comprehensive mechanism for protecting the life and property of senior citizens.
The Bench observed:
“The State has, thus, empowered and imposed a duty on the District Magistrate under the impugned rules to evict the son or daughter or legal heir from his property on account of non-maintenance and ill-treatment of the senior citizens.”
It further held:
“If Rule 22(3)(1) provides that an eviction order can be passed by the District Magistrate on an application made to him by a senior citizen in certain circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned rule cannot be said to be ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act.”
The challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) was consequently rejected.
Domestic Violence Act And Senior Citizens Act Must Be Harmoniously Construed
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, which held that the rights available under the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act must be harmoniously construed.
The Supreme Court had held that a woman’s right to seek residence in a shared household cannot automatically be defeated by obtaining an eviction order through the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, and that authorities must consider the competing claims arising under both statutes.
The Delhi High Court also referred to Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar and Kamalakant Mishra v. Collector while examining the power of authorities to order eviction for the protection and maintenance of senior citizens.
Daughter-In-Law Covered By Eviction Rule
The petitioner also argued that Rule 22(3)(1) expressly refers to a son, daughter or legal heir and therefore could not be invoked against a daughter-in-law.
The High Court rejected the contention, relying on its earlier decisions in Shadab Khairi v. State and Darshna v. Govt of NCT of Delhi.
It noted that the expression used in the Rules must receive a liberal interpretation and can extend to the families of a senior citizen’s son or daughter. The Court therefore held that a daughter-in-law is not outside the scope of Rule 22(3)(1).
Eviction Proceedings Independent Of Maintenance Claim
The Court further rejected the argument that an order of eviction could be passed only where maintenance had also been claimed.
It held that maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act are independent of eviction proceedings instituted under Rule 22(3)(1).
“These proceedings being independent of each other, even if a prayer for maintenance under section 4 read with section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act by instituting appropriate proceedings has not been made, an application under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules can be maintained.”
Finding that the Divisional Commissioner’s order had been correctly passed, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11683/2022
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Date: September 30, 2026
