1. Writ petition challenging eviction order under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 264
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J.
Smt.P.Pallavi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep.by Principal Secretary Revenue Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.18541 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel for Sri J.Sateesh Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mrs.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader, Mrs.Sangeetha, learned counsel
For the Petitioner: Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel for Sri J.Sateesh Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mrs.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader, Mrs.Sangeetha, learned counsel
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be used for the summary eviction of a daughter-in-law in settled possession of a matrimonial home, as such actions would defeat her statutory right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 16 and 23 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Summary eviction of daughter-in-law from matrimonial home - The Act is a beneficial statute intended for maintenance and protection of senior citizens, but it does not operate as a mechanism for summary eviction of persons in settled possession of residential property without proper adjudication of rights (Para 10) - Provisions do not ipso facto authorize eviction without due consideration of statutory requirements and circumstances of the case (Para 10) - Authorities must strike a balance between the welfare of senior citizens and the legally protected right of residence available to a daughter-in-law; the Act cannot be used to defeat substantive rights arising out of marriage, especially in disputes essentially matrimonial in nature (Para 12).
(B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Application - Section 23 applies only where a senior citizen has transferred property subject to a condition that the transferee will provide maintenance and care, and such condition is subsequently breached (Para 11, 16) - In the absence of a conditional transfer, Section 23 cannot be used as a tool to evict a daughter-in-law from a shared household, particularly when she claims a statutory right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act (Para 16).
(C) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300-A - Right to residence - A woman's right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be taken away by using other laws or by applying a narrow meaning to "shared household" (Para 15) - Title ownership alone is not determinative when the property constitutes a matrimonial home or shared household (Para 13).
(D) Colourable exercise of power - Use of summary welfare legislation to indirectly achieve objectives that could not be attained through matrimonial proceedings is impermissible in law (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
A daughter-in-law had been residing in a property since her marriage in 2010. The in-laws and husband voluntarily vacated the premises in 2013. After a divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed by the Family Court, the in-laws initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, alleging forcible occupation and seeking her eviction. The original authority and the appellate tribunal ordered her eviction based on the title of the property.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was in settled possession of the matrimonial home. The allegation of forcible occupation was belied by the fact that the respondents had voluntarily left the premises years prior. No conditional transfer of property had occurred to attract Section 23 of the Act. The authorities failed to consider whether the property was a shared household and relied solely on title, ignoring the petitioner's residential rights.
Issues: Whether the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked for the summary eviction of a daughter-in-law from a matrimonial home and whether such an order can override the right of residence guaranteed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a tool for summary dispossession of a person in settled possession. It must be read harmoniously with the Domestic Violence Act to ensure that the right to residence in a shared household is not extinguished through arbitrary procedures or technical ownership claims, especially when no breach of conditional transfer under Section 23 is established.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed lawful residence in matrimonial home; respondents argued property was self-acquired and eviction was lawful. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Senior Citizens Act cannot be used for summary eviction of daughter-in-law in settled possession of matrimonial home. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Senior Citizens Act does not authorize eviction of a person with lawful residential rights without proper adjudication. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
5. Writ petition allowed; eviction orders set aside. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Can the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 be used for summary eviction of a daughter-in-law from a matrimonial home?
No, the Act is a beneficial statute for senior citizens' welfare and cannot be used as a tool for summary eviction of a person in settled possession with lawful residential rights. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the relationship between the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 regarding a woman's right to residence?
Both Acts must be read harmoniously; eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act cannot nullify a woman's statutory right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Under what circumstances can Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 justify an eviction order?
Section 23 applies only when a senior citizen transferred property subject to a condition of maintenance, and that condition is breached. It cannot be used to evict a daughter-in-law claiming residence rights. (Para 16 )
ORDER :
E.V. Venugopal, J.
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :
“...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the form of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the Proceedings No11-04-2025 in file No.A/257/2024 and order passed by the Respondent No.3, i.e., District Collector & Magistrate, Hyderabad, District-cum-Appellate Tribunal under MWPSC Act, 2007, to set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the constitutional rights provided in Article 14 and the rights Constitution guarantees under Article 300 A consequently quashing the same.....”
2. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.K.Mani Deepika, learned Government Pleader for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens Department and Mrs.Sangeetha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the daughter-in-law of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the legally wedded wife of respondent No.6. Her marriage with respondent No.6 was solemnized on 02.06.2010 as per Hindu rites. It is asserted that after marriage, the petitioner started residing in the matrimonial home bearing H.No.22-2-871, Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad, which, according to her, is the ancestral property of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and forms the subject matter of the present dispute. Owing to strained marital relations, respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with respondent No.6 allegedly left the said house in the year 2013 and shifted to the residence of their elder son at Old Bowenpally, leaving the petitioner in possession of the property. Respondent No.6 thereafter filed Divorce O.P.No.97 of 2017 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, which came to be dismissed on 28.01.2020.
(a) It is the petitioner’s case that subsequent to the dismissal of the divorce petition, respondent Nos.4 to 6, with mala fide intent to evict her, invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondent No.4 filed a complaint under Section 16 of the Act before respondent No.3 alleging forcible occupation by the petitioner from 27.07.2013, suppressing the fact of her continuous residence since 2010. Basing on such allegations, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 11.04.2025 directing her eviction. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.2 was dismissed by order dated 25.06.2025 without, according to the petitioner, due consideration of her pleadings, documents and the findings of the Family Court in the above said Divorce OP. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, being contrary to the pleadings, documentary evidence and settled principles of law and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the subject property is the undisputed matrimonial home and ancestral property of respondent Nos.4 to 6, wherein the petitioner has been lawfully residing since her marriage in 2010 and that the respondents voluntarily abandoned the said premises in 2013. The allegation of forcible occupation is therefore false and contrary to record. It is further submitted that respondent No.6, in Divorce O.P. No.97 of 2017, disclosed a different residential address and the dismissal of the said petition on 28.01.2020 reinforces the petitioner’s possession. Having failed in matrimonial proceedings, the respondents are alleged to have taken a contradictory stand to invoke the Senior Citizens Act as a colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority ignored material pleadings, documentary evidence and binding findings of the Family Court an
