IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.02.2026 Ranjeet Kaur @ Ranjeet Sareen …Petitioner Versus Tribunal Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare and Sub Division Magistrate and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vansham Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.3 ****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, who is the daughter-in-law, has to knock the door of this Court, through the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to throw challenge to the order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-4), as passed by the learned Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, the learned Maintenance Tribunal, exercising its powers envisaged under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) have passed an exparte order and evicted the petitioner from the house in question and, challenge has also been thrown to the order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-7) wherethrough, the application for setting aside the exparte order was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal Sharma Vs. Sushila Devi and others), and other connected matters, submits that the application under the Act of 2007, itself is not maintainable against the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law. He further submits that though the application has been filed against the son as well, but the same was filed in connivance with the father. The entire gamut is to get eviction of the daughter-in-law.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the application is filed not only against the daughter-in-law but also against the son. However, he is unable to refute the judgment passed in Babu Lal Sharma (supra) wherethrough, it was held that any application under the Act of 2007, against daughter-in-law is held to be not maintainable. He further submits that the legality of the order impugned dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, eviction order has been passed against the petitioner, can be assailed by filing a statutory appeal. However, the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal, and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Though he tried to join the issue on merits but he was unable to refute the contentions on the issue of maintainability of the initial application in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

4. This Court has considered the submissions as made by the parties concerned, and has gone through the impugned order as well.

5. Whether, there is connivance between the father and son, would not be an issue for this Court to consider, at this stage, specifically when the only issue before this Court is maintainability of the application against the daughter-in-law, under the Act of 2007. This issue is squarely covered in Babu Lal Sharma case (supra)

6. Admittedly, the issue involved for consideration is no more res integra, as the same has already been deliberated upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Lal Sharma (supra). The relevant observations made therein are extracted hereinbelow:-

“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,