IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 18, 2026 SUKHAMRIT PAL KAUR -PETITIONER V/S THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-

COLLECTOR, JAGRAON AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ayush Loomba, Advocate, and Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate (Through V.C.)

for the respondents No.2 and 3.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a daughter-in- law, has assailed the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby directions were issued for partition of the house in question between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the latter acting as the Special Power of Attorney holder of her son/respondent No.3, who resides abroad.

2. Succinctly stated, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), seeking protection of her life and liberty against the petitioner and a restraint order prohibiting the petitioner from entering the portion of the house in question to be allotted to her. The grounds canvassed in the application were that the husband of the respondent No.2, the erstwhile owner of the house in question, had executed a Will during his lifetime bequeathing ½ share of the house to his grandson, Gurpratap Singh (son of the petitioner), and the remaining ½ share to his other grandsons, namely Satnam Singh and Sahib Singh (sons of respondent No.3). After the demise of her husband, the respondent No.2 alleged that she was subjected to harassment and physical abuse by the petitioner, prompting her to lodge a police complaint and initiate criminal proceedings before the competent court at Ludhiana. It was further averred that, as she was denied entry into the house, the respondent No.3, who is residing in Australia, executed a Special Power of Attorney in her favour to facilitate her residence in the half share bequeathed to his sons. Despite the same, the petitioner declined to permit her to reside in the said portion.

3. The application constituted the bedrock for the impugned order, whereby the respondent No.1 directed that the respondent No.2 shall occupy the ground floor of the house in question, while the petitioner and her two minor children shall reside on the first floor.

4. Assailing the impugned order, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 neither holds ownership rights in the house in question nor was any portion thereof bequeathed to her under the Will. It is submitted that the ownership of the house vests in equal half shares with the petitioner’s minor son and the sons of respondent No.3. The present proceedings are an offshoot of an inter se family property dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, and that the application under Section 22 of the Act of 2007 was engineered at the behest of respondent No.3 through the device of a Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2, with a view to secure an advantage in the said dispute. Such recourse amounts to misuse of the provisions of the Act of 2007 and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

5. It is further contended that the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against her daughter-in-law are legally untenable in view of the judgment dated 15.12.2025 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal Sharma v. Sushila Devi and others) wherein it was held that proceedings under the Act of 2007 are not maintainable against a daughter-in-law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 reiterates the allegations set forth in the application under Section 22 and submits that, post the demise of her husband, the respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and physical assault by