The Karnataka High Court has ruled that elderly property owners who are deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their homes have the right to evict their daughters-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act, even if the latter claim residency rights under domestic violence laws.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Sridevi R, who was challenging a tribunal order that mandated her eviction from her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property. The high court directed Sridevi to vacate the premises within eight weeks, prioritizing the elderly owners’ right to peaceful living over a daughter-in-law’s qualified right of residence.
The dispute involved Sridevi’s in-laws, 73-year-old Anasuya C and 82-year-old Changal Rayan. The court noted that the couple had been forced to leave their own home in 2015 and seek refuge with their other son due to hostile conditions.
Prioritizing Elderly Rights and Dignity
In the order dated June 18, the court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act was established not just for basic maintenance, but to guarantee the security, autonomy, and dignity of older individuals. The judge noted that senior citizens should not be forced to find shelter elsewhere while their own properties are reduced to empty titles devoid of possession.
According to the ruling, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also a beneficial law aimed at securing a woman’s right of residence in a shared household. However, the court clarified that this protection does not automatically become an absolute, permanent right to occupy a property owned solely by elderly parents-in-law, particularly when it deprives them of their own property rights.
Addressing the Legal Arguments
Sridevi’s counsel, Kanishk Ravindran, argued that the Senior Citizens Act does not provide for the eviction of a daughter-in-law. He asserted that the in-laws had voluntarily relocated in 2015 because of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between Sridevi and her husband. The defense also pointed out that Sridevi had already obtained favorable interim residence orders under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, suggesting that the senior citizens’ eviction effort was merely a retaliatory move against her matrimonial proceedings.
However, the court found that Sridevi’s occupation of the house was purely permissive, stemming from her matrimonial relationship. Additionally, the court highlighted that Sridevi is gainfully employed and not destitute or lacking alternative shelter, unlike her elderly in-laws who were effectively excluded from their home.
Precedent Set by the Supreme Court
To support its decision, the Karnataka High Court cited the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Rajeshwar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar. That precedent established that the protections offered under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be neutralized or rendered ineffective simply because the occupant is a daughter-in-law claiming residency under domestic violence legislation.
Ultimately, the court ruled that both acts must be balanced based on the specific facts of each case. When an exclusive property belongs to senior citizens who have been forced to leave due to hostile circumstances, the legal protections of the Senior Citizens Act must take precedence.
