##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

103 CWP-36359-2025

Date of Decision : February 05, 2026

GURBACHAN KAUR

-PETITIONER

V/S

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, with

Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate

for the respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Navneet Jindal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the respondent No.4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner, a

septuagenarian senior citizen, has assailed the order dated 17.07.2025

passed by the respondent No.2- Appellate Tribunal, whereby her statutory

appeal was dismissed, besides assailing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed

by the respondent No.3- Maintenance Tribunal, whereby her application

filed under Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of

2007”) was dismissed.

2. At the outset, this Court queried learned counsel for the

petitioner regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition,

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 03:15:09 :::

CWP-36359-2025 2

particularly in light of the judgment dated 15.12.2025, rendered by a

Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal Sharma vs.

Sushila Devi and others) and connected appeals.

3. In his endeavour to distinguish the case of the petitioner from

the ratio penned down in the judgment (supra), learned counsel for the

petitioner advanced a threefold argument. Firstly, it is submitted that since

the son of the petitioner (husband of the respondent No.4) has already

expired, the respondent No.4, being his Class I heir, falls within the

definition of “relative”, and hence the said judgment is distinguishable on

facts. Secondly, it is submitted that in LPA-1709-2018, which was also

disposed of vide the judgment (supra), the senior citizens were not granted

the benefit of eviction qua the daughter-in-law inasmuch as the son of the

senior citizens was alive at the relevant time, and hence the said judgment is

not applicable to the present case. Thirdly, reliance is placed on the verdict

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rajeswar Prasad Roy vs. The

State of Bihar and others”, 2025(2) ICC 677, to contend that the Supreme

Court has allowed eviction against daughter-in-law and son.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and finds the present writ petition to be without

merit. The principal reason for drawing this inference stems from the

unambiguous observations penned down by the Division Bench of this

Court in LPA-701-2018, holding that proceedings initiated against daughter-

in-law under the Act of 2007 are not maintainable. While recording such

observations, the verdict delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.3822 of 2020, titled “Smt. S. Vanitha vs. The Deputy

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 03:15:10 :::

CWP-36359-2025 3

Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others”, was duly

considered by the Division Bench. The relevant observations of the Division

Bench are extracted hereunder:-

“5. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No.3822 of 2020 titled “Smt. S. Vanitha Vs.The Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and ors.”, decided on

15.12.2020, has described the rights of a daughter-in-law to reside

in the matrimonial house and the courts have been directed to

balance the rights of the senior citizens with daughter-in-law. Once,

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(herein after referred to as ‘PWDV Act, 2005’), a right has been

given to the daughter-in-law to continue to occupy the matrimonial

house, probably, keeping in view the provisions of the PWDV Act,

2005, while enacting 2007 Act, the daughter-in-law has not been

included in the definition of children so as to seek remedy against

her under 2007 Act. The revelant paragraph of the judgment passed

in