IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 17, 2026 SIMMI RANI -PETITIONER V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATIALA AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 06.05.2022, whereby the Additional District Magistrate, Patiala, on a petition filed by the respondent No.2 (father-in-law of the petitioner and father of proforma respondent No.3) under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2007”), has directed eviction of the petitioner and her husband (proforma respondent No.3) from the house in question.

2. Succinctly stated, the respondent No.2 preferred a petition under Section 22 of the Act of 2007 seeking eviction of the petitioner and her husband, on the averments that, he is the owner of the house in question and is suffering from cancer. It was alleged that the petitioner and her husband had been pressurizing him to transfer the house in their favour and, upon his refusal, subjected him and his wife (since deceased) to harassment, including physical assault. It was further pleaded that although certain complaints were lodged by the respondent No.2 and the matter was, at one stage, settled, the acts of harassment resumed after a few months.

3. The petition was contested only by the petitioner by filing a written reply. It was averred that matrimonial discord subsists between the petitioner and her husband, and the eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.2 at the behest of the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner further alleged that her husband used to harass her at the instigation of the respondent No.2, and the eviction petition was the result of their collusion. It was also pleaded that a substantial portion of the house is in possession of the respondent No.2, and the petitioner is residing in a single room situated in the rear portion thereof.

4. Although the petitioner’s husband caused appearance before the Tribunal on two occasions, he subsequently failed to appear. Likewise, counsel representing the petitioner before the Tribunal did not appear on the relevant date, culminating in the passing of the impugned eviction order.

5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner advances a two-fold submission. Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction and, on this ground alone, is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, post the drawing of the verdict dated 23.01.2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4744-2018, titled “Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab”, the eviction petition (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional District Magistrate.

6. Secondly, it is contended that under the guise of proceedings under the Act of 2007, initiated at the instance of the petitioner’s husband, a purely matrimonial dispute has been sought to be resolved by effecting the petitioner’s eviction from her shared household. It is further contended that the issue as to whether eviction proceedings can be initiated against a daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Act of 2007 stands conclusively answered in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701- 2018 (Babu Lal Sharma vs. Sushila Devi and others), decided on 15.12.2025, and, therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly untenable.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 defends the impugned order and submits that the respondent No.2, being afflicted with cancer, requires constant care and medical attention, which is being provided