The Delhi High Court has determined that a senior citizen’s right to peaceful living cannot be diminished by a woman’s right to occupy a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), particularly in cases where there is substantial evidence of serious mistreatment. Justice Sanjeev Narula, leading a Single Bench, stated that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), have the authority to issue eviction orders against a daughter-in-law, even in the presence of a protection order under the DV Act.
“….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 considering a petition that challenged the Divisional Commissioner’s decision, which upheld an eviction order issued by the District Magistrate against the daughter-in-law (petitioner no. 1) and her husband (petitioner no. 2). This eviction was based on an application filed by a senior citizen widow (respondent no. 3). Although the family had been living together, escalating tensions led the respondent to seek eviction due to alleged mistreatment. The petitioners contended that the eviction was unlawful, citing an interim order under the DV Act that safeguarded the daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the shared household. However, the Court underscored that the rights granted under the DV Act are not absolute and must be weighed 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 observed that a woman’s right to live in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not absolute, particularly when it clashes with the rights of senior citizens. The Court emphasized the need to reconcile the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act to ensure the peace and security of senior citizens are protected.
In this case, the Court determined that the daughter-in-law and her husband had fostered 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 constituted severe mistreatment under the Senior Citizens Act, thereby justifying the eviction.
The Court also took into account the petitioners’ argument that alternative arrangements for cohabitation should have been considered. The Single Judge highlighted that the senior citizen has the right to decide her living conditions and should not be compelled to enter into an arrangement that worsens her distress. Despite concerns about the senior citizen’s health, the Court ruled that she cannot be forced to live with individuals who have allegedly mistreated her.
The daughter-in-law contended that her eviction would leave her homeless, infringing upon her fundamental right to reside. However, the Court clarified that financial hardships or health issues do not automatically warrant protection under the Senior Citizens Act. The financial difficulties faced by the petitioners could not take precedence over 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.
