The Delhi High Court has ruled that a senior citizen’s right to peaceful living cannot be outweighed by a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), particularly in cases where 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), can 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), based on an application filed by a senior citizen widow (respondent no. 3). The family had been living together, but escalating tensions led the respondent to seek eviction due to alleged mistreatment.
The petitioners argued that the eviction was invalid, 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 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 reside 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 for a harmonious interpretation of the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act, ensuring that the senior citizens’ rights to peace and security are protected.
In this case, the Court determined 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 were deemed gross ill-treatment under the Senior Citizens Act, warranting the eviction.
The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that alternative coexistence arrangements should have been considered. The Single Judge noted that the senior citizen has the right to choose how she wishes to live and should not be forced into a living situation that adds to her distress. Despite concerns about the senior citizen’s health, the Court ruled that she cannot be compelled to live with those who have allegedly mistreated her.
The daughter-in-law contended that her eviction would leave her homeless, infringing upon her fundamental right to residence. However, the Court clarified that financial hardship or health issues do not automatically warrant protection under the Senior Citizens Act. The petitioners’ financial challenges could not take precedence over the senior citizen’s right to live in peace.
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.