The court emphasized the harmonious interpretation of the Domestic Violence Act and Senior Citizens Act, affirming that parental rights must be weighed against the residential rights of a daughter-in-law amid matrimonial discord.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2022, passed by the ld. Principal Secretary-cum-Divisional Commissioner. The order was passed in an appeal filed by Mrs. Kartika Grover/Petitioner and her husband, Mr. Nitin Grover/Respondent No.4, against the order of the ld. District Magistrate (North West) passed on 25th August, 2020, under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter "MWPSCA"). Vide the said order of the ld. DM, the Petitioner/daughter-in-law was evicted from the premises being Ground Floor, SU - 151, Pitampura, New Delhi-110088 (hereinafter "subject property").

3. Mrs. Kartika Grover and Mr. Nitin Grover were married on 13th February, 2007. The couple was blessed with a girl child on 19th January 2009. The allegation of the Petitioner is that she was thrown out of her matrimonial house/subject property in 2012. However, with the help of the local police, she submits that she has re-entered the matrimonial house in the year 2015. The position as on date is that the father-in-law and mother-in- law/Respondent Nos.2&3 are no longer living in the subject property; they live in a small accommodation at Shalimar Bagh which is 32 sq. mts.

4. It is the case of the parents-Respondent Nos.2&3 that their son and daughter-in-law are in collusion with each other. They submit that the son and daughter-in-law misbehaved with them, abused them, and started pressurizing them to transfer the subject property, and vacate the same. In these circumstances, Respondent Nos.2&3, submit that they, along with the then-75 year old mother of Respondent No.2, were driven out of the subject property and forced to stay in another smaller property in Shalimar Bagh. Therefore, the parents filed a complaint before the ld. District Magistrate under the MWSCPA, which was finally disposed of by the impugned order evicting the Petitioner.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2&3 further submits that there is no complaint which has been filed against the in-laws either under Section 498A IPC or under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "DVA"). They submit that in fact, in a complaint filed by the Petitioner before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North- West, RHC/Mahila Court (hereinafter "Mahila Court"), Respondent Nos.2&3 have been deleted as accused. There are also no divorce proceedings which are pending. This according to the Respondents would show that there is collusion between the son and daughter-in-law. Ld. Counsel further submits that the mother-in-law suffers from Arthritis and the father-in-law is a heart patient. Both of them wish to occupy the ground floor subject property at Pitampura, as the Shalimar Bagh property where they are currently residing, is a very small property. They wish to use this second property for rental purposes for earning income in their old age. It is also alleged that the Petitioner herself is not in occupation of the subject property as is evident from the electricity bills of the last few months, where the consumption is shown to be very minimal and hence they are `NO PAYMENT BILLS.'

6. Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that there is a domestic violence complaint filed by the Petitioner before the Mahila Court against her husband, bearing CRN Number DLNW02-004063-2016. However it is admitted that there are no divorce proceeding