The Senior Citizens Act does not override the Domestic Violence Act; both must be harmoniously interpreted to protect the rights of senior citizens and women in shared households.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. Mrs. Santosh Tyagi, a senior citizen, has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 17th August, 2022,1 passed by the Respondent No. 1/ Divisional Commissioner dismissing her appeal against the order dated 13th February, 2021 (“the impugned order”), passed by the Respondent No. 2/ District Magistrate, South West, Kapashera under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”). The said order rejected Petitioner’s application for eviction of Respondents No. 3 to 6. This case brings us at an intersection of the senior citizen’s rights, as stipulated under the Act, with the entitlements of her daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Domestic Violence Act”), emphasizing the delicate balance between safeguarding the welfare of the elderly and protecting matrimonial home rights.

PETITIONER’S CASE:

2. Counsel for the Petitioner has presented the following facts and contentions:

2.1. The Petitioner, aged about 80 years, is the sole and registered owner of the property bearing No. RZ/A-34, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi, 110045 (“the subject property”). This property was acquired through a Sale Deed dated 05th April, 1974.

2.2. Residing within this property are Respondents No. 3, Mr. Dinesh Tyagi, and Respondent No. 4, Mrs. Babita Tyagi—her son and daughter-in- law, married since 16th January, 1996. Their children, Respondent No. 5, Ms. Kumari Iti, and Respondent No. 6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Tyagi, also reside with them. The area in contention is the ground floor of the residence, which includes three rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a common toilet.

2.3. From the outset, Respondents No. 3 to 6 have maintained a non- cooperative and hostile demeanour, frequently threatening the Petitioner, which has rendered cohabitation in the same property untenable. Consequently, the Petitioner was compelled to disown Respondents No. 3 to 6 via a public notice. Additionally, Respondents No. 3 and 4 have attempted to coerce her into partitioning the property under the guise of acquiring ownership. However, as the property is self-acquired by the Petitioner, Respondents No. 3 to 6 possess no legal claim, right, or interest in it.

2.4. Aggrieved by the conduct of Respondents No. 3 to 6, on 14th October, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for eviction of the said Respondents under the Senior Citizens Act before the District Magistrate. It was during these proceedings that it came to light Respondent No. 3 had initiated divorce proceedings against Respondent No. 4 in the Dwarka District Court. 2.5. Subsequent to the Petitioner’s eviction application, Respondent No. 4, on 02nd February, 2021, filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South-West District, Dwarka. The Petitioner submitted her reply and countered the allegations and sought discharge, arguing that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to her eviction application. On 30th May, 2022, the Mahila Court dismissed the Petitioner’s discharge application. However, upon challenge, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South-West, Dwarka, on 28th November, 2022, discharged the Petitioner and her husband citing the absence of specific allegations against them.

2.6. Petitioner can recount several incidences of harassment and ill- treatment faced by her at the hands of the Respondents No. 3 to 6. On 23rd August, 2020, Respondents No. 4 and 5, informed her that Respondent No. 5 was infected with COVID-19 and demanded a separate room for isolation, which was not available. When Petitioner suggested that Respondents No. 4 and 5 stay in government isolation centres, Respondent No. 5 attempted to expose the Petitioner to the virus. Petitioner’s husband also sought police help, however, no action was taken.

2.7. Thereafter, on 13th February, 2021, the District Magistrate dis