The court emphasized the rights and obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and clarified the applicability of provisions regarding shared households and maintenance orders.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner who is the widowed daughter-in-law of the senior citizens has instituted these proceeding challenging the orders dated 20 October 2020 passed by the District Magistrate and 09 July 2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. In terms of the former order, the District Magistrate while taking cognizance of the complaint made by the senior citizens had proceeded to frame directions for the eviction of the petitioner. That order has come to be confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal.

2. The senior citizens are stated to have petitioned the District Magistrate and invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 asserting that they have been victimized by the petitioner who used to ill-treat them and had also refused to maintain them. They had alleged in the complaint that the deceased 1 The 2007 Act husband of the petitioner had gone into a state of depression on account of alleged indiscretions committed by the petitioner while they were married. It was further alleged that the marital relations had broken down and the husband of the petitioner ultimately passed away on 17 December 2013. They had further alleged that the petitioner used to not only torture and mentally harass them, she was also prone to using abusive language. They had further asserted that the petitioner used to harass them staking a claim in the property and threaten that she would ensnare them in criminal cases. Ultimately and faced with the aforesaid, they are stated to have abandoned the house and shifted in with their elder son.

3. During the course of proceedings before the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is stated to have been tasked with undertaking the requisite enquiry as contemplated under the 2007 Act read with the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. In the first report of 13 March 2018, it was noted that the petitioner had alleged that the senior citizens along with the elder son essentially wanted to throw her out of the property and deprive her of her rights. In the second report which was drawn and submitted on 6 August 2019, the authority had noted down the statement of the senior citizens that they were forced to vacate the house on account of the negligent behavior of the petitioner. It also came to be recorded in this report that the neighbors had corroborated the statement of the petitioner who had contended that apart from her in laws, she had only one married elder sister as a close relative. Yet another report was placed on the record of the proceedings pending before the District Magistrate on 11 August 2020 where the senior citizens are reported to have asserted that the petitioner used to quarrel with them incessantly on the issue of partition of the property and irked by their desire to bequeath the entire property to the younger daughter-in-law.

4. Upon taking into consideration the entire material which stood placed on the record, the District Magistrate firstly held that it was the senior citizens who must be recognized to be the owners of the property in question. It was further observed that the conduct of the petitioner in the courtroom itself appeared to border on the 'dramatic'. Taking into consideration, the mental disturbance being caused by the petitioner to the senior citizens, the District Magistrate came to conclude that they must be conferred the right to peacefully live out their remainder years in their own property. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid, the authority proceeded to issue directions for the petitioner to vacate the property.

5. The petitioner is thereafter stated to have filed an appeal where the defenses which were taken before the District Magistrate were reiterated. The Divisional Commissioner while considering the aforesaid pleas as well as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgement of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha versus Deputy Commissioner, B