Senior Citizens' Right to Peace Prevails Over Daughter-In-Law's Right to Reside in Shared Household Under DV Act in Cases of Harsh Ill-Treatment

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a senior citizen’s right to live peacefully cannot be overridden by a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), especially when there is clear evidence of severe mistreatment.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over a Single Bench, held that authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), are empowered to issue eviction orders against a daughter-in-law, even if a protection order under the DV Act is in place.

“….the Respondent’s rights as senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be ignored, especially when there is a consistent pattern of ill-treatment. The Divisional Commissioner has, after examining the evidence, found that the Petitioners’ conduct has created a hostile environment, negatively affecting the senior citizen’s quality of life.The fact that the Respondent No. 3 is a senior citizen, now widowed without support, is a pertinent consideration for this Court to ensure that her rights to security and peace are upheld. While the Petitioner’s right under the DV Act is acknowledged, it does not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there is evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, there is no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner’s decision, which upheld an eviction order issued by the District Magistrate against a daughter-in-law (petitioner no. 1) and her husband (petitioner no. 2), following an application filed by a senior citizen widow (respondent no. 3). Although the family had been living together, rising tensions prompted the respondent to seek eviction due to alleged mistreatment.

The petitioners argued that the eviction was unlawful, citing an interim order under the DV Act that protected the daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the shared household. However, the Court emphasized that the rights under the DV Act are not absolute and must be balanced against the senior citizen’s right to a safe and peaceful living environment.

“Allegations of ill-treatment, financial exploitation, and mental harassment have been raised and corroborated by complaints and evidence presented before the authorities. This strained and hostile environment has severely impacted the senior citizen’s peace and well-being in her own home, thereby entitling her to seek the eviction of the Petitioners, including her daughter-in-law. The existing acrimony, supported by multiple complaints and a breakdown of the familial relationship, demonstrates that the senior citizen’s desire to evict the petitioners is not only justified, but also necessary to secure her right to live peacefully, in an advanced stage of her life,” the Court said.

The Bench noted that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not absolute, especially when it conflicts with the rights of senior citizens. The Court stressed the importance of harmonizing the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act to safeguard the peace and security of senior citizens.

In this case, the Court found that the daughter-in-law and her husband had created a hostile environment for the senior citizen, accusing them of economic exploitation, confining her to a single room, and subjecting her to emotional harassment. These actions amounted to severe mistreatment under the Senior Citizens Act, justifying the eviction.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ argument that alternative arrangements for coexistence should have been explored. The Single Judge emphasized that the senior citizen has the right to determine her living situation and should not be forced into an arrangement that exacerbates her distress. Despite concerns regarding the senior citizen’s health, the Court ruled that she cannot be obligated to live with individuals who have allegedly mistreated her.

The daughter-in-law argued that her eviction would render her homeless, violating her fundamental right to reside. However, the Court clarified that financial difficulties or health concerns do not automatically justify protection under the Senior Citizens Act. The financial challenges faced by the petitioners could not override the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully.

The Court said, “In the interest of balancing the rights of both parties, it is appropriate to allow Respondent No. 3 to fully exercise her ownership rights over the Subject Property. However, to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 is not left without suitable housing, this Court directs that she be provided with a monthly allowance sufficient to secure such accommodation. Therefore, in order to harmonize the senior citizen’s rightful claims with Petitioner No. 1’s residential rights under the DV Act.” Consequently, the Bench issued directions.

Upholding the eviction order, the Court directed the senior citizen’s son (petitioner no. 2) to pay Rs. 75,000 per month to his wife (petitioner no. 1) to protect her right to residence under the DV Act. “Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Nanak Mehta, is directed to provide financial assistance to his wife, Petitioner No. 1, by paying a sum of INR 75,000/- per month. This amount shall be credited to her bank account on or before the 10th of every month to enable her to secure alternative accommodation. Petitioner No. 1 shall provide the details of such bank account to Petitioner No. 2 within one week from today,” the Court said in its order dated October 4.

The Court further directed, “Once the financial support commences, the petitioners shall vacate the subject property and hand over vacant possession to Respondent No. 3 within one month from the date of the first payment.” Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition.