1. Petition challenging eviction order under Senior Citizens Act against daughter-in-law claiming residence in shared household under DV Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
Jyoti – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16295/2025|CM APPL. 66628/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satosh Paul, Vedant Mishra, Aditi Rai, Mohd. Owais, Shivendu Sharma
For the Respondents: Amitesh Gaurav, Vikas Kumar, Sharad Bansal, Ashmeet Kaur, Balvinder Ralhan, Aditya Ralhan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satosh Paul, Vedant Mishra, Aditi Rai, Mohd. Owais, Shivendu Sharma
For the Respondents: Amitesh Gaurav, Vikas Kumar, Sharad Bansal, Ashmeet Kaur, Balvinder Ralhan, Aditya Ralhan
The right of a woman to reside in a shared household under the DV Act, 2005, must be harmoniously construed with the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and cannot be defeated by summary eviction proceedings under the latter.
Headnote:(A) Right of Residence - Shared Household - Conflict between Senior Citizens Act and DV Act - The right of a woman to secure a residence order in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be defeated by a summary eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Both statutes must be harmoniously construed. (Para 8)
(B) Senior Citizens Act - Scope of Application - Misuse for Matrimonial Disputes - The summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act should not be misused to adjudicate matrimonial or property disputes or to evict an estranged daughter-in-law who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the premises. (Para 9, 18)
(C) Eviction - Relinquishment Deed - Disputed Title - A relinquishment deed, when its validity and effect are disputed and civil proceedings are pending, cannot be treated as conclusively determining or extinguishing a statutory right of residence, particularly when the residence of a minor child is involved. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the right of residence of a daughter-in-law in a shared household under the DV Act can be overridden by a summary eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act.
Result: Petition allowed; eviction orders set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserts right of residence in shared household; respondents contend exclusive ownership and alternative accommodation available. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Rights under Senior Citizens Act and DV Act must be harmonized; eviction cannot defeat residence rights in shared household. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Summary eviction under Senior Citizens Act cannot override a woman's residence right in shared household under DV Act. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Writ allowed, eviction orders set aside; title and validity of relinquishment deed left for civil proceedings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. Can a woman's right of residence in a shared household under the DV Act be defeated by an eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act?
No, the two statutes must be harmoniously construed; the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to evict a daughter-in-law who has a residence right in a shared household. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does the validity of a relinquishment deed affect the determination of a woman's residence rights under the DV Act?
Where the deed's validity is disputed and civil proceedings are pending, it cannot be treated as conclusively extinguishing the woman's asserted statutory right of residence. (Para 15 , 17 )
8. Is the eviction of a daughter-in-law permissible when a minor child also resides in the shared household?
The presence of a minor child residing in the premises is a relevant factor; eviction that disregards the child's residence is not sustainable. (Para 15 , 17 )
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Divisional Commissioner, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner/Smt. Jyoti against the Order of eviction dated 03.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate (West), came to be dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner/Smt. Jyoti got married to Respondent No. 3/Sh. Amit Kumar on 05.12.2021 and is the daughter- in-law of Respondent No.2/Smt. Sneh Lata Bhatia. She has been residing in the property bearing No. D-7, Block-D, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, (“subject property/matrimonial house”) along with her minor son/Master Aryaman (born out of the wedlock). It is alleged that her father-in-law, died intestate, on 05.12.2018. Allegedly, on 10.04.2019, the Respondent No. 3 and his brother, executed a registered Relinquishment Deed, relinquishing their respective shares with respect to the subject property, in favour of their mother i.e. Respondent No 2. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 filed an Eviction Petition against the Respondent No. 3 and Petitioner, and the Order of eviction was passed by the District Magistrate (West) on 03.03.2025.
3. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the same, came to be dismissed vide the Impugned Order dated 26.09.2025 on the ground that firstly, both sons have already relinquished their rights in the property in favour of Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner cannot claim any legal rights to reside in her in-laws residence; the right of residence, if any, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) lies against her husband who is bound to provide alternative arrangement/residence; secondly, the eviction did not render her destitute as the husband is paying her maintenance under orders passed by competent courts; and lastly, the advanced age, illness i.e. Stage IV Cancer and acrimonious atmosphere discernible from the pending litigations between the parties makes eviction a proportionate measure to secure the Respondent No. 2’s Safety, dignity and right to peaceful living.
4. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
5. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that, while directing her eviction, the authorities have proceeded essentially on the basis of the “exclusive ownership” claimed by Respondent No. 2 and the relinquishment said to have been executed by her sons, without adequately considering the Petitioner's asserted right of residence and the fact that the minor child is also residing in the premises. It has been urged that their right of residence could not have been defeated merely on the basis of a purported relinquishment deed executed by the husband and his brother, particularly when the validity and effect of the said document are disputed and the Petitioner has asserted that the property is an ancestral property/formed part of the estate of her deceased father-in-law.
6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents have essentially argued that the Petitioner cannot claim an absolute right to remain in the self-acquired/exclusive property of a senior citizen, particularly when her residence rights can be secured through suitable alternative accommodation, and that the writ petition deserves dismissal.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. It is well-settled that the rights available to a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the right of residence claimed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have to be harmoniously considered. The exercise cannot proceed on the assumption that one statutory right automatically eclipses the other. Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by securing an order of evicti
