The Delhi High Court has stayed the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her shared household, emphasizing the necessity of harmonizing the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The Court directed that the status quo regarding the title and possession of the property be maintained until the next date of hearing.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an eviction order dated April 5, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate (West), GNCTD, in Eviction Case No. 692/DCW/2022. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the consequential orders passed by the Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
The petitioner contended that these orders placed her under an “imminent threat of dispossession” from her residential abode.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. Osama Suhail submitted that the impugned orders failed to examine the controversy in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha vs The Deputy Commissioner.
The counsel pointed out that there is a specific order subsisting in favour of the petitioner under the PWDV Act. He referred to an order dated August 18, 2022, passed by the MM-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, in Complaint Case No. 2488/2019, which directed:
“The respondents are restrained from entering the room of the shared household in which the petitioner is residing.”
It was argued that the scope and import of this protection order were “not been examined in right perspective” by the authorities while passing the eviction orders.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the Vacation Bench, considered the submissions and the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Vanitha vs The Deputy Commissioner (2021) 15 SCC 730.
The Court noted the Supreme Court’s observation that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the PWDV Act, 2005, operate in separate fields but must be interpreted harmoniously. The High Court quoted the relevant portion of the S. Vanitha judgment:
“The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act, 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.”
Decision
Taking into account the precedent and the fact that an interim order was subsisting in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, the High Court granted interim relief.
The Court ordered:
“In the meantime, considering the aforesaid aspects, and considering that an interim order was subsisting in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of Appeal No. 1121/2025 before the Divisional Commissioner, it is directed that status quo as regards title and possession of the property shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.”
The Court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file a reply within three weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 3, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rashmi @Pooja Bahry vs Neena Bahry & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 19838/2025
- Coram: Justice Sachin Datta
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Osama Suhail, Ms. Sumana Suhail, Ms. Sanya Gandotra, and Ms. Puja Kesarwani, Advocates.
