Delhi HC Upholds Daughter-in-Law’s Eviction from Shared Household

SHARED HOUSEHOLD RIGHTS CANNOT OVERRIDE SENIOR CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO PEACEFUL RESIDENCE.

The Delhi High Court in a significant judgment passed in the case of Ritu Taneja v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.  W.P.(C) 12721/2023, has delivered an important judgment dealing with the recurring conflict between a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) and the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”).

In this case, the High Court upheld the eviction of a widowed daughter-in-law from her in-laws’ property while emphasizing that the right of residence under the DV Act is not an ownership right and cannot indefinitely defeat the rights of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their self-acquired property.

Fact of the Case in nutshell:-

The petitioner-wife was married to Late Pankaj Taneja in the year 2000 and started residing with her husband in property bearing No. B-3/81, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. After the demise of her husband in 2020, disputes arose between the widow and her in-laws.

The father-in-law and mother-in-law had initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act seeking eviction of the daughter-in-law and her son on allegations that their continued occupation and conduct disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the senior citizens. Initially, the District Magistrate directed eviction from only a portion of the property. However, in appeal, the Divisional Commissioner directed eviction from the entire premises after observing that relations between the parties had become irretrievably acrimonious and cohabitation was no longer possible.

Aggrieved by the eviction order, the daughter-in-law approached the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ Petition.

Submissions Raised by the Daughter-in-Law before the High Court:-

The petitioner contended that the premises constituted her “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act and therefore she could not be evicted through summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act. The petitioner-wife further asserted that her deceased husband had been actively associated with and contributing to the ancestral family business since his childhood and, therefore, had acquired a legitimate share and interest in the assets generated there from. It was contended that several properties and financial assets standing in the name of the respondents were in fact derived from the income and resources of the ancestral business. The petitioner also alleged that the respondents had wrongfully appropriated the benefits arising out of LIC policies and other financial instruments standing in the name of her deceased husband, despite she and her children being the lawful heirs entitled thereto. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that she had always maintained cordial relations with her in-laws and had dutifully cared for them, including personally attending to her mother-in-law during illness. On the strength of these assertions, the petitioners sought to establish not only a right of residence in the shared household but also an equitable and beneficial interest in the family assets and properties

Submissions of the Senior Citizens before the High Court:-

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the subject property was their self-acquired property and that the petitioner had no right, title or interest therein. It was further submitted that the daughter-in-law was financially independent and duly employed as a Government school teacher, thereby capable of maintaining herself and her children. The respondents alleged that the inter-se relationship between the parties had become highly strained and hostile, resulting in continuous friction and disturbance in their peaceful living. It was also their case that the petitioners were interfering with their peaceful enjoyment and possession of the property. Additionally, the in-laws pointed out that an alternative accommodation at Khirki Extension was already available to the petitioners, which further negated any necessity for their continued occupation of the subject premises.

Significant Observations of the High Court:-

1.    Senior Citizens Act is a Welfare Legislation.

The Court emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to ensure dignity, security, and peaceful residence for elderly citizens. The Court observed that the Act provides speedy and summary remedies to protect senior citizens from harassment, neglect, and interference in enjoyment of their property. Importantly, the Court held that eviction can be ordered where continued occupation by children or relatives disturbs the peaceful residence of senior citizens.

2.    Complex Property Disputes Cannot Be Decided in Summary Proceedings.

One of the most significant observations of the Court in the present judgment is the clear demarcation of the jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that proceedings under the said Act are summary in nature and cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of complicated civil disputes involving questions of title or proprietary rights.

The High Court categorically observed that issues relating to inheritance, ancestral property, coparcenaries rights, beneficial ownership, and financial claims arising out of family arrangements fall within the exclusive domain of competent civil courts. Such disputes require detailed examination of evidence, examination of title documents, and adjudication of contested facts, which is not permissible within the limited scope of summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act. Accordingly, the Court refused to entertain or examine the petitioner’s claims relating to alleged rights in ancestral business assets and LIC benefits of the deceased husband, holding that such issues are outside the jurisdiction of the authorities acting under the Act. The Court further clarified that the invocation of such complex property disputes cannot be used as a defense to resist eviction proceedings initiated for the protection of senior citizens. This clarification is particularly significant as it reinforces the consistent judicial view that welfare legislation meant for speedy relief cannot be converted into a parallel civil trial, and that parties must approach

3.    Shared Household Right is Not Absolute.

The Court acknowledged that the property could answer the description of a “shared household” under the DV Act since the petitioner had resided there after marriage. However, relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Civil Appeal No.3822/2020, the Court reiterated that the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act must be harmoniously construed. The Court held that the daughter-in-law’s right of residence cannot completely override the right of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their own property.

4.    Right of Residence is Protective, Not Proprietary.

The High Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja Civil Appeal No. 2483/2020, while examining the scope of a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the matrimonial home under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court reiterated that the right conferred under Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act is purely a protective right intended to ensure shelter and security, and does not create any ownership or proprietary interest in the property of the in-laws. It was further clarified that the mere fact that a premises qualifies as a “shared household” does not translate into an indefeasible or perpetual right of occupation in favour of the daughter-in-law. Such a right must always be balanced against the competing rights of the owners of the property, particularly when they are senior citizens entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their residence. The Court therefore emphasized that the statutory protection under the DV Act cannot be used to permanently displace the lawful owners of the property, and in appropriate cases, alternate accommodation or other equitable arrangements may be considered instead of continued occupation of the same premises. This observation significantly reinforces the legal position that residence rights under the DV Act are protective in nature and must yield where continued cohabitation becomes unworkable or unjust.

5.     Financial Independence of the Daughter-in-Law is Relevant factor.

The Court placed significant reliance on the fact that the petitioner was a Government school teacher, financially independent, and not economically vulnerable. This factual aspect was considered relevant while assessing the nature of the dispute and the necessity of continued residence in the subject property. The Court distinguished the present case from situations involving destitute women or victims of severe domestic violence who may require urgent protection in the form of residence orders under the DV Act. It observed that the protective intent of the statute is primarily to ensure shelter and security to those who are unable to sustain themselves, and not to facilitate prolonged occupation of a property in every circumstance irrespective of individual financial capacity. Accordingly, the Court noted that the dispute in the present case was not one of shelter or survival, but was substantially rooted in competing claims relating to property rights, financial entitlements, and family assets. This distinction played an important role in the Court’s balancing of equities while affirming the eviction order in favour of the senior citizens.

6.    Alternate Accommodation Played a Key Role.

The Court took into account the fact that the petitioners were not without shelter and were already in possession of an alternate accommodation at Khirki Extension. This circumstance was treated as a relevant factor while assessing the overall equities between the parties. Further, it was noted that the father-in-law had expressed willingness to hand over the relevant documents pertaining to the said alternate property, along with documents relating to two plots situated at Faridabad, subject to the petitioners vacating the subject premises. The Court considered this arrangement to be an important equitable factor in balancing the competing interests, as it ensured that the petitioners would not be rendered homeless while simultaneously securing the senior citizens’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their self-acquired property.

Final Directions Issued by the Court:-

The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld the eviction order passed by the appellate authority and issued certain consequential directions to ensure a structured and equitable implementation of the decision.

The Court directed the respondents to deposit the documents relating to the alternate accommodation as well as the properties at Faridabad before the Divisional Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. It further directed the petitioners to vacate the subject property within forty-five days thereafter, thereby granting a reasonable transition period.

The Court also imposed a restraint on both parties from creating any third-party interest in respect of either the subject property or the properties being offered to the petitioners, except with the permission of the competent court. These directions were intended to maintain status quo in terms of title and possession until the formal implementation of the arrangement was completed.

Conclusion:-

The Delhi High Court in this case has once again reaffirmed that while the DV Act protects a woman’s right to residence, such protection cannot be used to indefinitely deprive senior citizens of peaceful enjoyment of their property. The judgment carefully harmonizes two beneficial legislations while preserving the limited scope of summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act. At the same time, the Court ensured that the petitioners were not rendered remediless by leaving open their right to pursue appropriate civil remedies concerning inheritance, ancestral property, or financial entitlements before competent courts.

*****By Mahesh Tiwari Adv. Supreme Court of India