The court clarified the definition of 'shared household' and 'domestic relationship' under the Domestic Violence Act and the summary procedure for passing eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act. The court also emphasized the requirement to plead and prove domestic violence in the context of shared household rights.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - And yet again, in conflict herein is between the right of a married woman to secure her residence, pleading it to be matrimonial home/ shared household, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(for short 'Domestic Violence Act)vis-a-vis right of a Senior Citizen (mother-in-law) to seek eviction, pleading it to be a self-acquired property, by invoking summary procedure under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'Senior Citizens Act').

2. Petitioner-wife and her estranged husband (respondent No.4) are concededly living separately. She is aggrieved by an eviction order dated 18.01.2018 (Annexure P-12)passed at the instance of her mother-in-law (respondent No.3-Senior Citizen) by Maintenance Tribunal (respondent No.2-the District Magistrate, Gurugram) qua property in question i.e. C-166, Ground Floor, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurugram. Petitioner pleads that she has been resident in the said premises for the last 13 years along with her minor daughter aged 16 years (at the time of filing the petition, now about 21 years old). She seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the aforesaid eviction order claiming it to be an arbitrary exercise of power under the Senior Citizens Act.

3. Succinct factual narrative first, as pleaded in the writ petition. Marriage between petitioner (daughter-in-law) and respondent No.4, son of respondent No.3 (mother-in-law), was solemnized on 27.12.1998 as per Sikh rites. They were blessed with a daughter Ms. Rhea Sahni on 24.05.2001. Initially, family resided at J-11/76, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, the property owned by respondent No.3. They later shifted to the house in question in Gurugram on 06.07.2004. Petitioner states she too had financially helped the family in purchase of said property, though this is disputed by respondent No.3 vehemently. When her marriage fell on rocks, petitioner was forced to start working as a teacher to fend for herself and her daughter. Sometime in October 2015, petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in Family Court, Delhi against her husband and mother in law, followed by a complaint dated 01.12.2015 under section 498-A of IPC etc. in Mahila Police Station, Gurugram (later converted into an FIR in July, 2016). In between, on or around 08.12.2015 husband filed a divorce petition in Family Court, Delhi. Allegations and cross allegations exchanged between the parties are not relevant for adjudication of the controversy in hand, and are, therefore not being referred herein. But the very nature of proceedings, both civil and criminal, reflect the level of acrimony amongst them. On or around 17.12.2015, husband (respondent No.4) left the matrimonial home i.e., house in question and shifted to Delhi in a house bearing No. WZ 107, Plot No.324, Ground Floor, Chand Nagar, New Delhi, which too is under the ownership of mother in law respondent No.3. Vide order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P2), Domestic Violence Court directed the respondent No. 4 (husband) not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. As a counter blast, so it is alleged, mother in law (Respondent No.3), at the instance of her son (respondent No.4) filed a civil suit, dated 31.05.2016, in Civil Court, Gurugram for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner. Respondent No.3 then followed it up by an application dated 08.06.2017 under Senior Citizens Act for petitioner's eviction from the house of Gurugram. Pursuant thereto, Maintenance Tribunal (Respondent No.2) vide an order dated18.01.2018 (Annexure P-12), impugned herein, directed eviction of the petitioner from the house in question, within one month from the date of the order.

4. No counter affidavit has been preferred by either the mother-in-law or the son. Learned counsel representing mother in law-respondent No.3 would submit that the same is not warranted, as he would rely on the re