IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 Date of Decision: 22.01.2026 REKHA PATHANIA ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant.

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, respondent No.3.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-13338-2020, by which the writ petition filed by the senior citizen (respondent No.3 herein) has been allowed and a direction has been given to the daughter-in-law to vacate the premises belonging to the senior citizen. However, vide order dated 27.09.2022, status quo with regard to possession was ordered in the present appeal and appellant continues to occupy the premises even as of now.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in the present case, there was a matrimonial dispute between the son of the senior citizen and the appellant and it is only due to the said matrimonial dispute, the eviction of the appellant is being sought, though the same is not permissible keeping in view the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Act’).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an exclusive plea against a daughter-in-law cannot be raised for vacation of the premises under 2007 Act, especially when the intention is to evict the daughter-in-law only due to the matrimonial dispute between the son of the senior citizen and the appellant. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, by which the said benefit of eviction under 2007 Act was declined to the senior citizen, has wrongly been set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the senior citizen submits that once the property belongs to a senior citizen, the said senior citizen has exclusive right to seek eviction and therefore, once the eviction is inherent under the 2007 Act, the benefit granted by the learned Single Judge directing the eviction of the daughter-in-law i.e. the appellant herein is perfectly valid and legal and the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

5. Before proceeding further, it has to be noticed whether the relief can be sought against daughter-in-law by the senior citizen. The definition of ‘children’ has been given under Section 2(a) of 2007 Act, which is as under:-

“2. (a) “children” includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor;”

6. A bare perusal of the same would show that the daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of the children against whom the relief can be claimed by the senior citizen. Further, as per the definition of ‘relative’

under Section 2(g) of 2007 Act, which is as under:-

“2. (g) “relative” means any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death;”

7. A bare perusal of the above would show that the relative will only mean a legal heir of the childless senior citizen, who is not minor and is in the possession of or would inherit his property after death of the senior citizen. It is a conceded fact that the daughter-in-law will not be covered under the definition of relative as well.

8. The question which arises for consideration is whether once the relief is being claimed by the senior citizen qua eviction of daughter-in-law alone, can the benefit be granted by the concerned authorities under 2007 Act. The benefit of the relief under 2007 Act can only be granted keeping in view the provisions of 2007 Act and once, the daughter-in-law is not covered under the definition of children or relative, the senior citizen cannot approach seeking relief exclusively against the daughter-in-law especially when senior citizen has not given any property to the da