Senior Citizen’s Right To Peace Supersede Daughter-In-Law's Right To Reside In Shared Household Under DV Act In Case Of Gross Ill-Treatment: Delhi HC

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 evidence of gross ill-treatment.

The Single-Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), can issue eviction orders against a daughter-in-law despite an existing 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 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) on the application of a senior citizen widow (respondent no. 3). The family had been living together, but rising tensions led the respondents to seek eviction due to the alleged ill-treatment.

The petitioners argued that the eviction was invalid as it conflicted with the DV Act's interim order, which 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 with the senior citizen's right to a secure 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 under Section 17 of the DV Act, a woman’s right to reside in a shared household is not absolute, especially when it conflicts with the rights of senior citizens. The Court stressed that the Senior Citizens Act and DV Act must be interpreted harmoniously, ensuring that senior citizens’ rights to peace and security are upheld.

In the present case, the Court found that the daughter-in-law and her husband created a hostile environment for the senior citizen. The petitioners were accused of economic exploitation, confining the senior citizen to a single room, and emotionally harassing her. These actions amounted to gross ill-treatment under the Senior Citizens Act, justifying the eviction.

The Court also addressed the petitioners' argument that coexistence arrangements should have been explored. The Single-Judge remarked that the senior citizen has the right to decide how she wishes to live and should not be forced into a living arrangement that contributes to her distress. Despite claims of the senior citizen’s ill-health, the Court ruled that she cannot be compelled to live with those who have allegedly mistreated her.

The daughter-in-law also argued that evicting her would leave her homeless, violating her fundamental right to residence. However, the Court noted that financial constraints or health issues do not automatically grant protection under the Senior Citizens Act. The petitioners’ financial difficulties could not override the senior citizen's right to peaceful living.

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. 

Cause Title: Pooja Mehta & Ors. v. Government of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024: DHC: 7873]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Rajiv Bajaj, Saurabh Soni, Vineet Mishra, Rishav Dubey, Ruchir Jain, Pawan Bhardwaj

Respondent: Advocates Satyakam, Harsh Kumar Singh, Vivek Chib, Senior Advocate Vaibhav Sethi, Advocates Priya Pathania, Roma Bedi, Unnati Jhunjhunwala, Mansi Gupta, Brij Harani

Click here to read/download the Judgment